United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Pacific Northwest
Research Station
General Technical
Report
PNW-GTR-606
April 2004
Thinning and Prescribed Fire and
Projected Trends in Wood Product
Potential, Financial Return, and
Fire Hazard in Montana
R. James Barbour, Roger D. Fight, Glenn A. Christensen,
Guy L. Pinjuv, and Rao V. Nagubadi
Authors
R. James Barbour is a research forest products technologist, Roger D. Fight
is a research forester, Glenn A. Christensen is a research forester, and Guy L.
Pinjuv and Rao V. Nagubadi were foresters, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O.
Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208. Pinjuv is currently a doctoral candidate, University
of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand; Nagubadi is
currently a post-doctoral fellow, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn
University, Auburn, AL 36849.
Abstract
Barbour, R. James; Fight, Roger D.; Christensen, Glenn A.; Pinjuv, Guy L.;
and Nagubadi, Rao V. 2004. Thinning and prescribed fire and projected trends
in wood product potential, financial return, and fire hazard in Montana. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-606. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 78 p.
This work was undertaken under a joint fire science project “Assessing the need,
costs, and potential benefits of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to reduce
fire hazard.” This paper compares the future mix of timber products under two treatment scenarios for the state of Montana. We developed and demonstrated an analytical method that uses readily available tools to evaluate pre- and posttreatment
stand conditions; size, species, and volume of merchantable wood removed during
thinnings; size and volume of submerchantable wood cut during treatments; and
financial returns of prescriptions that are applied repeatedly over a 90-year period.
Keywords: Wood products, thinning, fire hazard, financial return, Montana.
Executive Summary
This work was initiated under a Joint Fire Science Program-funded project ”Assessing
the needs, costs, and potential benefits of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments
to reduce fire hazard.” We developed and demonstrated an analytical method that
uses readily available tools to evaluate pretreatment and posttreatment stand conditions; size, species, and volume of merchantable wood removed during thinnings; size
and volume of submerchantable wood cut during treatments; and financial returns of
prescriptions that are applied repeatedly over 90 years. In this paper we compare the
potential mix of timber products recovered under two treatment scenarios applied in
Montana.
The treatment scenarios simulated here were not intended as solutions to the fuel
hazard problem per se. They are, however, representative of approaches that are
currently being applied on the ground, and our intention was to illustrate (1) the use
of existing tools to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of implementing these types
of treatments and (2) the likely results of repeatedly applying these treatments over
long timeframes. There are important policy issues associated with both parts of
the analysis. Our analysis suggests that only a relatively small proportion of existing
stands could be treated without a subsidy if either of the prescriptions modeled here
is used. Even so, almost 1,000,000 acres could be treated without a subsidy. Fire
hazard is initially reduced by these treatments. The effects of subsequent treatments
range from barely maintaining the initial improvement to continuous improvement over
a 10-decade period. Projections of repeated applications of these treatments suggest
that they also could have unintended consequences by creating conditions conducive
to bark beetle (Dendroctonus spp.) outbreaks or by reducing stand densities below
acceptable levels. Neither option studied provided for regeneration of stands, so ageclass distribution would eventually become a problem in stands managed under either
prescription. Our main conclusions, therefore, are that (1) it is important to consider
the long-term consequences of fuels treatments and (2) existing tools can provide useful information about the short- and long-term effects of many proposed treatments.
Findings
A variety of silvicultural treatments can be modeled by using these methods. One of
the treatments we chose to illustrate the methods was to thin from below to 9 in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) with a minimum residual basal area (BA) and follow with
a prescribed burn, then every 30 years to reevaluate for thinning and to burn whether
rethinned or not (TB9). The key findings of that scenario follow.
•
The initial effect of this prescription on fire hazard was modest. Repeat entries did
little more than maintain the initial gains.
•
There was a substantial long-term downward trend in the projected basal area
mortality expected during prescribed burn treatments.
•
Basal area built up over time, perhaps to levels that would put the stands at risk of
insect outbreaks.
•
There was no merchantable volume harvested under this prescription after the
first thinning.
•
No cases were found where the harvested material would cover the cost of
conducting the thinning either currently or in future entries given existing market
conditions. (If volumes removed from skid trails or cable corridors were included in
these calculations, the results might have been different.)
•
If the TB9 prescription were widely implemented and if policy called for utilization
of the removed volume, investments in new processing capacity would be necessary because this prescription yields only submerchantable trees after the first
entry.
The other treatment we chose was to thin from below up to 50 percent of standing
basal area with a minimum residual basal area and follow with a prescribed burn, then
every 30 years reevaluate for thinning and burn whether rethinned or not (50BA). The
key findings of that scenario follow.
•
The initial effect of this prescription on fire hazard was modest, but there was continued improvement with successive entries.
•
There was a substantial long-term downward trend in the projected basal area
mortality expected during prescribed burn treatments.
•
Basal area stabilized near the minimum residual basal area required under the
prescription.
•
The merchantable volume harvested was lower in future entries than in the initial
entry, but the d.b.h. of harvested trees increased to greater than 16 in over the
simulation period.
•
The prescription made no provision for regenerating the stand, so repeated entries
often lowered the number of trees per acre to well below full stocking levels. In
practice, managers would almost certainly alter prescriptions to regenerate stands
before this happened.
•
Typically, less than 20 percent of the high-hazard plots had net financial returns
of more than $100 per acre, but this amounted to more than 790,000 acres of
Douglas-fir and almost 180,000 acres of ponderosa pine where this treatment
could potentially be implemented without a subsidy.
•
Most cases showed a positive net return from thinnings by the end of the simulation period.
The results suggest that both of the simulated prescriptions reduced fire hazard over
the long term, but they were not equally effective. Over the course of several entries,
the basal-area-limited prescription created stands that were open with a few scattered
large trees, whereas the diameter-limited prescription created dense stands with many
midsize trees. The diameter-limited prescription sometimes resulted in combinations of
basal area, tree size, and stand age that raise concerns over insect outbreaks, specifically Douglas-fir beetles (Dendroctonus pseudotsuga Hopkins), western pine beetles
(D. brevicomis Le Conte), and mountain pine beetles (D. ponderosae Hopkins). In
general, however, it was possible to use these treatments to develop a wide range of
density and tree size combinations over the simulation period. Even with the simple
prescriptions modeled here, it would be possible to select stands with different initial
conditions and ages and apply the prescriptions at different times to develop a diverse
set of conditions on a landscape. We did not explore such spatial or temporal arrangements of treatments, but this undoubtedly would be important when developing management plans that consider the interactions of fuel reduction treatments with multiple
resource values and episodic disturbances on large landscapes.
In terms of wood utilization, the analysis showed that the diameter-limited prescriptions produced only small volumes of small trees from the first entry and minimal
volumes in subsequent entries. These prescriptions almost universally had negative
net returns, even without considering the costs of a regular cycle of prescribed fire, so
a substantial subsidy would be required to implement them. If these prescriptions were
widely implemented and if industrial capacity were developed to use the wood removed under them, it would be important to size processing plants and develop treatment schedules to ensure a sustainable supply of raw material.
The basal-area-limited treatment produced more volume than the diameter-limited
prescription and sometimes showed a positive net return. This prescription produced
trees and logs in a variety of sizes. Although the average diameter of cut trees increased with successive entries, the total volume per thinning generally declined over
time.
Contents
1
Introduction
2
Geographic and Forest Type Detail
2
Methods and Assumptions
4
Fire Hazard Reduction Treatments
4
Forest Vegetation Simulator Variants
4
Prescriptions
5
Effectiveness of Hazard Reduction Treatments
5
Financial Analysis
6
Results and Discussion
6
Douglas-Fir
13
Ponderosa Pine
20
Conclusion
22
Metric Equivalents
22
Literature Cited
24
Acronym Glossary
24
Appendix 1—Cost and Log Price Assumptions
26
Appendix 2—Acreage and Number of Inventory Plots
28
Appendix 3—Average Initial Stand Characteristics
32
Appendix 4—Average Residual Stand Characteristics
41
Appendix 5—Average Volume of Utilized Trees
50
Appendix 6—Average Volume of Unutilized Trees
59
Appendix 7—Average Small-End Diameter of Utilized Logs
62
Appendix 8—Average Percentage of Volume, by Species, of Utilized Trees
71
Appendix 9—Average Proportion of Stands by Net Value Category
Introduction
This study was undertaken with funding from the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) to
develop protocols for use in determining the magnitude of hazard reduction treatment
needs, treatment cost, and associated benefits at a state level. The objectives of the
study include (1) quantifying existing stand conditions for major forest types in terms
of density, structure, and species composition, and prioritizing by need for hazard
reduction treatment, (2) developing and comparing alternative cutting and prescribed
burning prescriptions for reducing high-hazard conditions in major forest types, (3)
determining potential revenue from timber products generated from the hazard reduction harvest treatments, (4) comparing the future mix of timber products under alternative treatment scenarios, and (5) describing the potential for analyzing noncommodity
resources under treatment and no-treatment scenarios. This report demonstrates the
protocols developed under JFSP funding to analyze and illustrate trends in the longterm effects of repeated hazard reduction entries in terms of the stocking, size, and
species mix of residual stands and the size and species mix of trees and logs that
might be removed and used for wood products.
Montana was selected as an example because recent inventories were available.
Montana’s forest products industry is well established with the technological capability to process the numerous small-diameter logs expected from fuel hazard reduction treatments. A similar analysis was conducted for New Mexico where the existing
industry is small and not geared toward using this type of material (see Fight et al.
2004).
If widely adopted, the types of treatments proposed as a means of reducing forest
fire hazards could have implications for future forest conditions as profound as past
management practices, principally harvesting and fire exclusion that led to the existing
conditions. Changes of that magnitude have the potential to affect many forest values
such as fisheries, wildlife, timber, nontimber forest resources, environmental services,
and amenities. Some of these changes will likely be considered positive and some will
likely be considered negative. How they are viewed depends on the resource in question and the relative importance given to different resource values. It is neither our
place nor our intent to say which changes are more important or whether they are desirable or undesirable. Our intent is to provide a set of protocols that use existing tools1
and data2 that are available to analysts employed by federal, state, and private land
management organizations. The interpretations we provide in this report are intended
as neutral examples illustrating these protocols. Our protocols can be used to conduct
analyses and display information about fire hazard, stand conditions, and removed
materials. We anticipate that this information will be useful to decisionmakers who formulate fire management policy and devise implementation strategies.
1
For example, Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), Fire and Fuels
Extension (FFE), Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem Management
Activities (FEEMA), Microsoft Access (the use of trade or firm names in
this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service), etc.
(see “Methods and Assumptions” section).
2
We used forest inventory and analysis (FIA) plot-level data, but many
types of stand-level data are adequate for these protocols.
1
The types of treatments proposed to reduce fire hazard could also have important
implications for the volume and characteristics of timber available for the production
of forest products. Significant shifts in the species or size composition, for example,
could influence the economic viability of the industry and affect the economic health
of the people and communities in which timber processing occurs.
This report is intended to supply information to a broad range of decisionmakers
concerned with forest fire hazard including federal, state, and private forest land
managers, planners, and others with an interest in the management of forests in
the Western United States.
Geographic and
Forest Type Detail
Montana was divided into western and eastern regions for analysis and reporting.
The division generally follows the Continental Divide. Within each geographic area,
forests were further divided into 11 forest types: Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.), ponderosa pine
(Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.), moist low-elevation mixed conifers, dry low-elevation mixed conifers, upper-elevation mixed conifers, western larch (Larix occidentalis
Nutt.), spruce/fir (Picea spp./Abies spp.), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.),
quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), and cottonwood (Populus spp.). We performed our analyses on the Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forest types because they
were identified by the Montana technical contact team3 (TCT) as being of high concern and having a high potential for hazard reduction treatments. These forest types
have relatively short fire-return intervals and are likely candidates for hazard reduction
treatments. They were also extensive enough to supply sufficient forest inventory and
analysis (FIA) data with which to provide a meaningful illustration of our protocols. We
report results by two ownership categories: national forest land and other land. These
categories were chosen to make the most efficient use of the available FIA data. With
additional stand exam data it would be possible to further refine ownership classes. In
this report each combination of region, owner group, forest type, slope category, and
hazard category is referred to as a “case” and each application of a treatment (a thinning or prescribed fire) within each case is referred to as an “entry.” Reporting within
the two ownership classes was further broken down into current forest fire hazard
condition and slope. The maximum number of reporting categories (cases) for the
Montana study was 32 (2 regions by 2 owner groups by 2 forest types by 2 slope categories by 2 hazard categories).
Methods and
Assumptions
The objective of this analysis was to show the results of two stand treatment options
intended to reduce fire hazard both now and in the future. Evaluations include (1) residual stand structure, (2) volume, size, and characteristics of merchantable trees cut
through time, (3) the volume and size of submerchantable (biomass) trees cut through
time, and (4) the financial feasibility of treatments. A detailed description of our modeling techniques is given by Christensen et al. (2002)
We used existing modeling tools and inventory data linked in a way that allowed a
comprehensive analysis over a range of treatment options. Primary tools included the
Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) growth and yield model (Crookston 1990, Stage
3
A group of experts were assembled to comment on the design of and
outcomes from this analysis. They are Donald Artley, Montana Department
of Natural Resources and Conservation; Danny Castillo, USDA Forest
Service Northern Region; Dennis Dupuis, Salish and Kootenai Tribal
Forestry; Bruce Reid, USDI Bureau of Land Management; and Gordy
Sanders, Montana Tree Farmers and Pyramid Lumber.
2
1973), the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) model as part of FVS (Beukema et al. 1997,
Scott and Reinhardt 2001), and the Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem Management
Activities (FEEMA) model (Fight and Chmelik 1998). Data were stored in a Microsoft
Access database, and a standard set of reports was developed within the database.
Use of these tools makes the analysis portable to anywhere in the Western United
States where an FVS variant with an FFE extension and a FEEMA variant are available. The tools are familiar to, or can be readily learned by, forest planning and analysis staff within federal agencies and most state or private organizations. Where they
exist, other growth models, fire models, and financial models could be substituted for
the ones we used.
Measurements of current forest vegetation are from data collected by the Forest
Service FIA program. Our methods are general, however, and adequate data can be
obtained from a wide range of stand exam or other stand-level data that are suitable
for use as input data to FVS. An important caveat here is that stand-level data should
be collected in such a way that they comprise a statistically representative sample of
the vegetation population on the target landscape.
We examined 678 candidate FIA plots with a sampling weight of approximately 6,000
acres each. When more than 50 plots were available for a given case,4 a sample of
50 plots was randomly selected to represent all the area in that case. When fewer
than 50 plots were available for a given case, all of the plots were used in the analysis.
Cases with fewer than 10 plots were not included in the analysis because there were
insufficient data to adequately represent potential variation. Alternatively, it is possible
to analyze all plots regardless of sample size and examine results for individual plots
rather than average results. We felt that this method would be tedious and not allow us
to provide a compact illustration of our methods. Individual analysts might, however,
be interested in identifying plot conditions where the probability of some desired outcome, such as financially viable activities, is high. In that case, analysis of individual
plots might be desirable.
Fire hazard rating is based on estimates of the crowning index for each decade provided by the FFE of FVS. Crowning index is the windspeed necessary to sustain a
crown fire. It is calculated from the crown bulk density for the stand. The lower the
crowning index, the higher the probability that a crown fire will be sustained (Scott and
Reinhardt 2001). Crowning index values reported are after thinning (if called for) and
prescribed fire treatment.
Forest inventory and analysis data were converted into FVS input files, and a silvicultural treatment regime was simulated. The silvicultural regimes simulated in this
analysis were intentionally kept simple to provide an uncomplicated illustration of the
protocols and to provide benchmark results that could be used to refine treatment options. In other parts of this study another more complex prescription was used, but it
was not used in our analysis because we were unable to model it in FVS.5
4
Each case is the combination of ownership, forest type, fire hazard, and
slope.
5
Fiedler, C.E.; Keegan, C.E., III; Woodall, C.W. [et al.] 2001. A strategic assessment of fire hazard in Montana; A strategic assessment of
fire hazard in New Mexico. Reports submitted to the Joint Fire Science
Program Board, 3833 S. Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705.
3
For each harvest made in FVS, a list of cut trees was recorded and then imported into
the FEEMA model. The FEEMA model determined merchantability of each tree, based
on a minimum small-end diameter (SED) of 5.0 in inside the bark and a minimum log
length of 8 ft for upper logs and 16 ft for butt logs. The FEEMA model tallied individual logs and produced an output file summarizing volume by species, tree diameter
at breast height (d.b.h.), and log SED. These results were compiled in a database.
Results from the simulations were calculated as the average of the FIA plots selected
for each case (50 or fewer as described above) weighted by the appropriate plot expansion factor (the number of acres represented by a plot). Whole-tree stem volumes
of biomass (submerchantable) trees from 1 to 7 in d.b.h. were estimated by using FVS.
We did not calculate total biomass (total stem, limbs, and foliage) volume or weight for
the biomass trees.
Fire Hazard Reduction
Treatments
Silvicultural prescriptions were developed in consultation with the TCT. The objective
was to cover a range of treatment options. In general, a treatment can be a thinning, a
thinning followed by burning (prescribed fire), or a maintenance burn (prescribed fire)
without a thinning. We used thinning treatments that included thinnings from below
to different diameter and basal area targets, followed by a prescribed burn. Thinning
was simulated with FVS. Prescribed burning was simulated by using the FFE model.
The crowning index from the FFE model was used as a surrogate for fire hazard. We
segregated all plots into high, medium, and low fire hazard based on crowning indices, which are expressed as windspeed of <25 mph (high hazard), 25 to <50 mph
(moderate hazard), and 50+ mph (low hazard). For the ponderosa pine forest type
we grouped the plots with high and medium fire hazard, and in the Douglas-fir forest
type we grouped the plots with medium and low fire hazard. For reporting purposes,
output tables are labeled as “high” or “low” fire hazard with the grouping indicated at
the beginning of the results section for each forest type. This designation indicates the
relative importance of treating stands in the indicated crowning index classes for that
forest type. Treatments in plots designated as low were deferred for one treatment
simulation cycle (30 years).
Forest Vegetation
Simulator Variants
Three FVS variants were used for this analysis. The eastern Montana variant was
used for all of eastern Montana. In western Montana, the northern Idaho variant was
used except for the Kootenai National Forest and the Tally Lake Ranger District of the
Flathead National Forest where the Kootenai variant was used.
Prescriptions
Two generalized prescriptions were applied to both forest types. The first was a thinfrom-below to 9 in d.b.h. It is referred to as TB9 in the text. The second is a thin-frombelow to up to 50 percent of standing basal area. It is referred to as 50BA in the text.
Details of the treatment for each forest type and geographic locations follow.
Douglas-fir—The thinning reentry interval is 30 years with prescribed burning immediately following each entry (thinning and burning included in the same FVS simulation
cycle). The TB9 prescription required a minimum residual basal area of 45 ft 2/ac in
western Montana and 40 ft 2/ac in eastern Montana. The 50BA prescription required a
minimum residual basal area of 80 ft 2/ac in western Montana and 70 ft 2/ac in eastern
Montana. Stands that did not have sufficient basal area to qualify for a thinning were
burned and were reconsidered for thinning at the next thinning cycle (30 years).
4
Ponderosa pine—The thinning reentry interval is 30 years with prescribed burning immediately following each entry (thinning and burning included in the same FVS
simulation cycle). The TB9 prescription required a minimum residual basal area of 40
ft 2/ac in western Montana and 35 ft 2/ac in eastern Montana. The 50BA prescription
required a minimum residual basal area of 50 ft 2/ac in western Montana and 40 ft 2/ac
in eastern Montana. Stands that did not have sufficient basal area to qualify for a thinning were burned and were reconsidered for thinning at the next thinning cycle (30
years).
Effectiveness of Hazard
Reduction Treatments
Linear regression analysis was used to identify trends in the long-term effectiveness of
treatments in lowering fire hazard. The regression tested for a time trend and a treatment effect in the predicted crowning index. The dependent variable in these regressions was the average predicted crowning index for the high-hazard plots for a given
forest type and treatment. The independent variables were decades numbered from
1 to 10, dummy variable for decade of treatment, and dummy variable for the decade
following treatment. Dummy variables have a value of 1 for data points that have the
attribute and zero otherwise. The model form was Y = a + b(decade) + c(decade of
treatment dummy) + d(decade following treatment dummy). Any of the three variables that were not statistically significant at the 5-percent level were deleted from the
model, and the model was rerun. Results from this analysis helped to illustrate whether there was improvement in crowning index immediately after entries or during the
decade following entries, how crowning index changed between entries, and whether
there was a long-term trend of improvement in crowning index.
A similar analysis was used to identify trends in the average basal area mortality expected from the prescribed burns. The dependent variable in these regressions was
the average predicted basal area mortality (percentage) for a prescribed burn for the
high-hazard plots for a given forest type and treatment.
Financial Analysis
The FEEMA model was used to rate the potential net revenue from the thinnings. The
analysis was done for a single set of economic assumptions that represent mixed
market conditions. The market conditions used represent a market for lumber and a
market for chip logs down to 5 in SED. Although the pricing was done on a log basis
rather than the tree basis used in another part of the study, the prices were made as
comparable as possible (see footnote 5). The financial returns should be regarded as
optimistic because of the assumed market for chip logs, but useful in identifying the
relative financial feasibility of different cases and changes in feasibility of future versus
current treatments. Costs included cutting small trees that are cut and treated in place
and cutting trees that are used for products. Costs of other harvest-related activities
such as road building or repair and environmental remediation, which can vary widely, were not included, nor were revenues associated with timber removed from skid
trails or cable corridors. Ground-based equipment was assigned a lower cost than
cable yarding systems. Stump-to-truck costs were based on Hartsough et al. (2001).
Ground-based equipment was assumed on slopes of less than 35 percent. Hauling
costs were $28 per 100 ft3 for all species and areas. See appendix 1 (tables 1 through
3) for a full description of economic assumptions.
5
Results and
Discussion
Douglas-Fir
The total area and number of FIA inventory plots included in this analysis for the
Douglas-fir forest type are shown in appendix 2 (table 4). Douglas-fir plots were segregated by high crowning index (<25 mph windspeed) and low/moderate crowning index
(25+ mph windspeed) for the analysis presented here. For brevity, these two groups
are referred to as high fire hazard and low fire hazard in all of the tables for this species.
Treatment effect on fire hazard—Regression analysis indicated both a time trend
(positive coefficient on decade) and a cyclical treatment effect (a positive coefficient
on the decade following treatment) on average crowning index for the 50BA prescription in the Douglas-fir high-hazard stands. This means that each subsequent treatment brought the crowning index higher (a lower hazard) than the previous treatment.
The results from the Douglas-fir high-hazard stands with TB9 treatment had a cyclical
treatment effect (a positive coefficient on the decade following treatment) and a small
time trend. There was improvement with each entry, but after the initial increase, the
crowning index declined to a level only slightly above the previous entry by the time of
the next entry. These comparisons are clearly seen in the plot of the predicted average values for fire hazard index shown in figure 1. Recall that the crowning index for all
high-hazard plots was initially less than 25, so the first point in the figure includes the
improvement associated with the initial treatment.
Figure 2 shows the analogous comparison for the predicted average basal area mortality resulting from prescribed burns. In spite of the fact that the effect on crowning index is quite different between the treatments, the effect on potential basal area mortality is strikingly similar. This means that even though the ability to carry a crown fire is
different, the ability of the trees to withstand low-intensity fires, such as prescribed fire,
is similar. By the 10th decade of the simulation, expected basal area mortality drops to
around 5 percent for both prescriptions.
Initial stand summary—The initial stand conditions for high- and low-fire-hazard
cases differ systematically when paired by geographic region, owner, and slope. The
low-hazard cases consistently have lower basal area, fewer trees per acre, and larger
quadratic mean diameters (QMD) (app. 3, tables 6 through 9). A typical comparison is
shown for western Montana in figure 3.
Residual stand summary—The results presented in figure 4 illustrate how stand
conditions would change over time for Douglas-fir plots. Although the results shown in
the figure are for Forest Service land in western Montana, they are similar to those for
other ownerships and geographic regions in Montana (app. 4, tables 14 through 17).
When the two prescriptions are applied repeatedly over the course of a century, our
analysis suggests that the 50BA prescription will result in less-crowded stand conditions with fewer but larger trees than the TB9 prescription.
The main difference between the treatment projections is that the diameter-limited
prescription (TB9) resulted in an accumulation of basal area over time, whereas the
basal-area-controlled prescription (50BA) reduced basal area to the minimum value,
80 ft 2/ac in this case, and kept it there throughout the simulation. Under the diameter-limited prescription, basal area and QMD increased over time while trees per
acre declined. This happened because the prescription generally removed all of the
trees under 9 in before the minimum basal area was reached. Basal area increased
because the trees over 9 in d.b.h. were never removed, and as they grew, basal area
continued to accumulate. Trees per acre declined because few, if any, trees under 9 in
6
Figure 1—Predicted average crowning index over time for high-fire-hazard Douglas-fir plots in Montana
by prescription. TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to 50
percent of basal area.
Figure 2—Predicted average basal area mortality over time for high-fire-hazard Douglas-fir plots in
Montana by prescription. TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from
below to 50 percent of basal area.
7
Figure 3—Initial stand conditions for Douglas-fir plots on steep slopes in western Montana: basal area, number of trees per acre, and
quadratic mean diameter, reported by gentle slope low or high fire hazard (GSLH or GSHH) and steep slope low or high fire hazard
(SSLH or SSHH).
survived to become large trees, but some of those larger than 9 in died in each growing cycle (10 years). With no understory trees to replace them, the number of trees per
acre declined over time.
The accumulation of basal area projected under the TB9 prescription is an issue that
forest managers or planners might want to consider more closely. Our analysis suggests that this prescription will generally be sufficient to keep treated stands in the
moderate fire hazard class and that mortality associated with prescribed burns, and
presumably other low-intensity fires, will decline over time under both prescriptions.
Stands managed under these prescriptions for a long time, however, will have very
different structures. Both of these stand structures might be regarded as desirable
components of a landscape at some level. The 50BA prescription creates open stands
with scattered large trees. The TB9 prescription creates densely stocked stands with
trees more uniform in size. In some cases, the resulting conditions reach a point
where the stands are high hazard for Douglas-fir bark beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsuga Hopkins) outbreaks.6 Neither prescription allows for regeneration of an understory and recruitment of smaller trees into the overstory, so both will eventually lead to
single-story stands.
6
Gibson, K. 2001. Personal communication. Entomologist, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Forest Health Protection,
P.O. Box 7669, Missoula MT 59807.
8
Figure 4—Residual conditions projected for Douglas-fir plots on steep slopes with high fire hazard on national forests in western Montana
(average values for thinned plots only): basal area, number of trees per acre, and quadratic mean diameter, by prescription. TB9 = thin from
below to 9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
Merchantable volume by diameter at breast height class—Data for average
removed volume of trees 7 in d.b.h. and larger are reported in appendix 5 (tables 22
through 25). As a rule of thumb, sale administrators experienced with small-diameter
timber sales typically look for at least 600 ft3 of removed volume per acre.7 None of
the cases reported for the TB9 prescription yield that much volume, but 12 of the 16
cases under the 50BA prescription did yield at least 600 ft3 /ac in the first entry. In
some cases, the merchantable volume in the first entry was more than 1,000 ft3 /ac.
An example of the change in harvest volume for one case by entry is shown in figure
5. The TB9 prescription did not result in any merchantable volume after the first entry,
and this was also true for all other cases using this prescription. The greatest volume
was removed from the 50BA prescription during the first entry, and the volume removed in the second entry was less than the first in all but one case. In some cases,
the volume remained fairly constant over time from the 50BA prescription, but in others it continued to decline as it does in figure 5.
7
Wynsma, B. 2001. Personal communication. Timber sale administrator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Idaho Panhandle
National Forest, Bonners Ferry Ranger District, Bonners Ferry, ID 83805.
9
Figure 5—Average merchantable volume projected to be removed from Douglas-fir plots on national
forests in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard, by prescription. TB9 = thin from below to
9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
The characteristics of the volume removed under the 50BA prescription also change
considerably over time (fig. 6). At the beginning of the simulation period (2000), most
of the volume removed was in the 7- to 10-in and 10- to 13-in d.b.h. classes. By the
second entry (2030), almost no volume was in these classes, and most of the volume
came from trees greater than 13 in d.b.h. Volume removed during the third and fourth
entries came almost exclusively from trees greater than 16 in d.b.h.
Stem biomass volume of trees 1- to 7-in diameter at breast height—Total stem
volumes of cut trees less than 7 in d.b.h. are illustrated in figure 7. Under both prescriptions the initial entry yields by far the largest volume of trees in the 1- to 7-in d.b.h.
class. After the initial entry, the volume of small trees that were cut sometimes fluctuated with either prescription, but it always remained well below the initial volume.
Detailed results for all cases are found in appendix 6 (tables 30 through 33). There
currently is not a reliable pulp market in Montana and no biomass market. Assuming
a moisture content of 50 percent and a specific gravity of 0.40, these volumes convert
to 6 to 10 green tons per acre. This estimate does not include limbs and foliage, so the
total biomass could be considerably higher. These trees are either an opportunity or
a disposal problem depending on whether markets are developed for them. Analyses
like this one might prove useful when considering siting biomass-processing facilities,
but scheduling of treatments also is an important issue because most of the volume
occurs in the initial entry. Over time the supply of small trees would be expected to
decline following broad application of either prescription.
Average small-end diameter of removed logs—The TB9 prescription always produces logs that are only slightly larger than 5 in with small-end diameters ranging from
5.0 to 5.7 in (app. 7, table 38). This happens because the largest merchantable tree
removed under this prescription is 9 in d.b.h., and such trees do not yield logs much
larger than 5 in SED. With current technology, large volumes of logs in this size range
10
Figure 6—Average merchantable volume projected to be removed from Douglas-fir plots on national
forests in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard, by tree diameter at breast height.
Figure 7—Projected nonmerchantable volume in trees 1- to 7-inch diameter at breast height cut from
Douglas-fir plots on national forests in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard, by
prescription. TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to 50
percent of basal area.
would create a problem for conventional solid wood processors because of the inefficiencies of manufacturing either lumber (Barbour 1999) or veneer (Christensen and
Barbour 1999). Progress has been made recently in identifying alternative uses for
such small-diameter logs, e.g., structural round wood (LeVan-Green and Livingston
2001, Wolfe and Hernandez 1999), but markets are poorly developed.
11
Figure 8—Volume-weighted average log small-end diameters for wood projected to be removed from
Douglas-fir plots on national forests in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard, by
prescription. TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to 50
percent of basal area.
Log SED increases over time for the 50BA prescription as expected in light of the
comparison of tree sizes (fig. 8). Most cases reach average SEDs of 10 in or more in
the third entry, and modern random-length dimension sawmills often process logs that
average less than 10 in,8 so this mix of logs is well suited for many existing mills.
Although the size of the logs increases over time for the 50BA prescription, the
average merchantable volume removed decreases by more than one-third over the
same period (fig. 5). The actual reduction may be more than shown here because
sometimes stands that were thinned in the first cycle do not qualify to be thinned in
a subsequent cycle and are excluded from the averages shown in this figure. This
means that although the quality of the raw material might increase over time, the
quantity could decline depending on the scheduling of treatments within a fixed area.
Percentage of volume removed, by species—In all cases most of the volume removed under both prescriptions is Douglas-fir. Representative results are presented in
figure 9. There was little difference in the species composition of the harvested material under the two prescriptions. White wood (true firs, spruce, lodgepole pine, and other
minor conifer species) proportion of the harvested volume removed is slightly higher
during the first entry than later, but over time there is no real species shift. These
results suggest that if species-dependent processing options were established in an
area where large-scale fire hazard reduction treatments in Douglas-fir stands were
taking place, differences in tree size from the two prescriptions would likely be a more
important issue than species mix. Detailed results for all cases are found in appendix
8 (tables 40 through 43).
8
Armstrong, R. 2000. Personal communication. Vice President, USNR
Corporation, 558 Robinson Rd., Woodland, WA 98674-9547.
12
Figure 9—Percentage of saw log volume, by species projected for Douglas-fir plots on national forests
in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard. TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at
breast height. 50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
Financial analysis—Results from the financial analysis suggest that in many cases
the first entry will require a subsidy of $100 or more per acre for either the TB9 or
50BA prescription. In fact, all of the plots treated with the TB9 prescription required
at least a $100 per acre subsidy. The situation improved over time under the 50BA
prescription (fig. 10). Except for the first entry, no merchantable volume was removed
under the TB9 prescription, so activities under that prescription always had negative
net returns. These estimates include the costs of treating material that is not economical to use for products. They do not include the costs of prescribed fires, which occur
on a 30-year cycle on high-hazard stands whether or not plots are thinned. They also
occur on a 30-year cycle on low-hazard stands, but do not start until the beginning
of the second cycle. The financial results are summarized for all cases in appendix 9
(tables 48 through 51).
Ponderosa Pine
The total area and number of FIA inventory plots included in this analysis for the
ponderosa pine forest type are shown in appendix 2 (table 5). Ponderosa plots were
segregated by high/moderate hazard (<50 mph windspeed) and low hazard (50+ mph
windspeed) for the analysis presented here. For brevity, these two groups are referred
to as high fire hazard and low fire hazard in all of the tables for this species.
Treatment effect on fire hazard—Regression analysis indicated both a time trend
(positive coefficient on decade) and a cyclical treatment effect (positive coefficients
for the decade of treatment and the decade following treatment) on average crowning
index for the 50BA prescription in the ponderosa pine high-hazard plots. This means
that each subsequent entry brought the crowning index higher (a lower hazard) than
the previous entry. The results from the ponderosa pine high-hazard plots using the
TB9 prescription showed no trend for improvement over time, and there was only a
small effect in the decade following treatment. The effect is small enough that the
13
Figure 10—Net value per acre projected for the 50BA prescription from Douglas-fir plots on national
forests in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard.
hazard index hovers around 50 mph throughout the 10-decade period. These comparisons are clearly seen in a plot of the predicted average value for fire hazard index
in figure 11.
Figure 12 shows an analogous comparison for the predicted average basal area mortality from prescribed burns. In spite of the fact that the effects of the two prescriptions
on crowning index are quite different, their effects on potential basal area mortality
are strikingly similar. This means that even though the likelihood that trees will carry a
crown fire is different for each prescription, the ability of the trees to withstand prescribed fire is similar, with expected basal area mortality dropping to around 5 percent
in both cases over the projection period. This result suggests that by the 10th decade
of the simulation, both prescriptions create stand conditions where trees are relatively
resilient to low-intensity fires.
Initial stand summary—The initial stand conditions for high- and low-fire-hazard
cases differ systematically when paired by geographic region, owner, and slope. The
low-hazard cases consistently have lower basal area, fewer trees per acre, and larger
quadratic mean diameters (app. 3, tables 10 through 13). Typical comparisons are
shown for both national forest land and other forest land in western Montana (fig. 13).
Residual stand summary—The results presented in figure 14 illustrate how stand
conditions changed over time for ponderosa pine plots. Although the results shown in
the figure are for Forest Service land in western Montana, they are similar to those for
other ownerships and geographic regions in Montana (app. 4, tables 18 through 21).
Our analysis suggests that when repeatedly applied over the course of a century, the
50BA prescription will result in less-crowded stand conditions with fewer but larger
trees than the TB9 prescription.
14
Figure 11—Predicted average crowning index for high-fire-hazard ponderosa pine plots in Montana, by
prescription. TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to
50 percent of basal area.
Figure 12—Predicted average basal area mortality for high-fire-hazard ponderosa pine plots in Montana,
by prescription. TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to 50
percent of basal area.
15
Figure 13—Initial stand conditions for ponderosa pine plots in western Montana: basal area, number of trees per acre, and quadratic
mean diameter, reported by gentle slope low or high fire hazard (GSLH or GSHH) and steep slope low or high fire hazard (SSLH or
SSHH).
As with Douglas-fir, the diameter-limited prescription (TB9) resulted in an accumulation of basal area over time, whereas the basal-area-controlled prescription (50BA)
reduced basal area to the minimum value for this forest type,9 and kept it there
throughout the simulation. Basal areas in plots treated under the TB9 prescription
reach an average of 90 ft 2/ac in the second or third treatment cycle, and after a cen2
tury they were all over 100 ft /ac. These plots are reaching the combinations of age
and basal area where they would be considered at risk for attack by mountain pine
beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) and western pine beetles (D. brevicomis
Le Conte) (see footnote 6). If such regimes are followed on a large proportion of the
landscape, extensive insect outbreaks could eventually become a problem.
Merchantable volume by tree diameter at breast height class—Data for average
removed merchantable volume of trees 7 in d.b.h. and larger are reported in appendix
5 (tables 26 through 29). As with Douglas-fir, cut volumes were not high. In 7 of the 13
cases where there were sufficient data to conduct the analysis, more than 600 ft3 /ac
was removed under the 50BA prescription for at least one entry. Five of those cases
yielded more than 600 ft3 /ac in more than one entry. In contrast, harvested volume
never averaged more than 150 ft3 /ac under the TB9 prescription.
Basal areas of 50 ft 2 /ac in western Montana and 40 ft 2 /ac in
eastern Montana.
9
16
Figure 14—Residual conditions projected for ponderosa pine plots on steep slopes with high fire hazard on national forests in western
Montana (average values for thinned plots only): basal area, number of trees per acre, and quadratic mean diameter, by prescription. TB9
= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
An example of the change in harvest volume for one case by entry is shown in figure
15. The TB9 prescription did not result in measurable merchantable volume after the
first entry. This was true for all cases analyzed for ponderosa pine both in eastern and
western Montana. The greatest volume was removed from the 50BA prescription during the first entry, and the volume removed in subsequent entries declined. Trees in all
diameter classes were removed during the first entry (fig. 16). In subsequent entries,
volume was almost exclusively removed in the largest diameter class (16+ in at d.b.h.).
This is a fairly common result in the other cases for ponderosa pine regardless of ownership, geographic location, or slope class.
Stem biomass volume of trees 1 to 7 in diameter at breast height—As with
Douglas-fir, the initial entry for both prescriptions yielded by far the largest volume of
trees in the 1- to 7-in d.b.h. class. Characteristic results for the total stem volume of
trees less than 7 in d.b.h. are illustrated in figure 17. The volume cut in this size class
ranged from about 160 ft3 /ac to more than 350 ft3 /ac in the initial entry and between
50 and 150 ft3 /ac in subsequent entries (app. 6, tables 34 through 37). After the initial
entry, the volume of small trees cut was generally lower for the TB9 prescription and
volumes from both prescriptions sometimes fluctuated, but they always remained well
below the initial volume. Because there are few markets in Montana for trees less than
7 in d.b.h., most of this material would be either cut and treated in place or cut and left
at the landing.
17
Figure 15—Average merchantable volume projected to be removed from ponderosa pine plots on national
forests in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard, by prescription. TB9 = thin from below to
9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
Figure 16—Average merchantable volume projected to be removed from ponderosa pine plots on national
forests in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard, by tree diameter at breast height.
Average small-end diameter of removed logs—Results for average SED for one
ponderosa pine case are shown in figure 18. As with Douglas-fir plots, the TB9 prescription always produces logs that are only slightly larger than 5 in on the small end
(5.0 to 5.7 in) (see appendix 7 table 39). Processing problems for logs this size were
18
Figure 17—Projected nonmerchantable volume in trees 1- to 7-inch diameter at breast height cut from
ponderosa pine plots on national forests in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard, by prescription. TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to
50 percent of basal area.
Figure 18—Volume-weighted average log small-end diameters for wood projected to be removed from
ponderosa pine plots on national forests in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard, by
prescription. TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to 50
percent of basal area.
already discussed for Douglas-fir, but the problem is even more pronounced for ponderosa pine because dimension lumber is a poor option for this material (Lowell and
Green 2001).
19
Log SED increases over time for the 50BA prescription, often averaging greater than
15 in. If logs in these diameter classes were to become available, they would almost
certainly find markets. They are small enough to be accommodated by newer hightechnology mills, yet large enough, and in this situation old enough, that reasonable
yields of higher valued appearance grades (particularly Factory grades) of lumber
might be expected from them (Lowell and Green 2001, Plank 1982, Willits 1994).
As with Douglas-fir, there was a tradeoff between log size and average merchantable volume removed. In the example shown in figures 15 and 17, volume removed
declined by almost one-half between the first and the last entry. This means that over
time the timber volume removed to maintain low fire hazard might decrease but the
value of wood products might increase.
Percentage of volume removed by species—Ponderosa pine was the most abundant species removed from the ponderosa pine plots (app. 8, tables 44 through 47).
The results in figure 19 for the TB9 prescription show one of the few entries in any
case where pine was not the major contributor of removed volume. The results shown
for the 50BA prescription are far more characteristic. There was a moderate shift in
species because the amounts of Douglas-fir and white woods removed tended to
decline rapidly with successive thinnings, so timber removed after the first entry was
about 80 percent pine.
Financial analysis—Results from the financial analysis are also similar to those for
Douglas-fir. They suggest that in many cases the first entry will require a subsidy of
$100 or more per acre for either the TB9 or 50BA prescription. In fact, all of the plots
treated with the TB9 prescription required at least a $100 subsidy. Except for the first
entry, no merchantable volume was removed under the TB9 prescription, so activities
under that prescription always had negative net returns. The situation improved over
time under the 50BA prescription (fig. 20). During the first entry a mix of diameters
were removed (fig. 16), but nearly 60 percent of the plots had negative net returns. In
the subsequent entries almost all of the removed volume was from trees greater than
16 in d.b.h. Many of these entries had a positive net return. These estimates include
the cost of treating material that is not economical to use for products. They do not
include the cost of prescribed fire, which occurs on a 30-year cycle on high-hazard
stands whether or not plots are thinned. Fires are also prescribed on a 30-year cycle
on low-hazard stands, but not until the beginning of the second cycle. The financial
results are summarized for all cases in appendix 9 (tables 52 through 55).
Conclusion
20
In this report we demonstrate the use of existing tools and database manipulations
to evaluate fire hazard treatments for large landscapes. The data needed to conduct
these analyses are available from the USDA Forest Service FIA Program for most
forested areas in the United States. Finer scale analyses can also be performed by
using these analytical methods if a systematic inventory is available. Both TB9 and
50BA prescriptions improved the fire hazard rating over the initial conditions, but the
50BA prescription was more effective. The 50BA prescription further reduced fire
hazard with each sequential entry, whereas the TB9 prescription merely lowered fire
hazard rating and kept it there with subsequent treatments. The residual stands from
the two prescriptions were also quite different, and these differences increased over
time. The most noticeable difference was the accumulation of basal area under the
TB9 prescription. Over the course of many decades, the two prescriptions will create
very different structural conditions in stands with identical initial conditions. The 50BA
Figure 19—Percentage of saw log volume by species projected for ponderosa pine plots on national
forests in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard. TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches
diameter at breast height. 50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
Figure 20—Net value per acre for the 50BA prescription projected for ponderosa pine plots on national
forests in western Montana on steep slopes with high fire hazard. 50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of
basal area.
prescription resulted in less dense stands with fewer, but larger, trees than did the
TB9 prescription. Neither prescription, as written, makes a provision for recruitment
of young trees into the overstory, so this aspect of the prescriptions would need to be
changed if they were used operationally.
The TB9 prescription never produces substantial amounts of merchantable timber,
and after the first entry it does not produce any merchantable timber. The 50BA
prescription produces merchantable timber at every entry, and the size of the trees
removed increases with each subsequent entry, although volume declines with time.
21
Both prescriptions yield moderate amounts (usually 100 to 400 ft3 /ac) of small trees
(<7 in d.b.h.) in the first entry, but in later entries they produce much less of this small
timber. This is primarily a result of prescribed burning following each entry. Without the
prescribed burns, small trees would probably be more abundant. The results suggest
that if an interim solution to the excess fuel problem were to establish some type of
biomass utilization industry and a wide-scale prescribed burning schedule were implemented in stands after the initial fuel reduction treatment, it would be important to plan
for a declining volume of small-diameter timber over time regardless of which prescription was used.
Only small sawlogs are produced from the TB9 prescription, and none are produced
after the first entry. Finding a market for these logs is likely to be difficult. The 50BA
prescription produces larger logs, and their size increases over time. The fact that
there was no species shift over time suggests that size presents a more important
planning issue for processors than species mix.
Financial analyses suggest that at least initially, the two prescriptions examined here
will require subsidies to implement in a large proportion of Montana even without
considering the cost of the prescribed fire treatments. The results also suggest that by
using prescriptions like the 50BA prescription, the situation could improve with time.
Even though there are situations where this prescription could be applied with a positive net return, there are many land use restrictions or other constraints that were not
accounted for in our analysis. It seems likely that any large-scale program will treat a
mix of stands with both positive and negative net returns and that it will not be possible
or even desirable to simply search the landscape for those stands where a positive
return is likely. If prescriptions are limited to ones similar to those evaluated here, the
number of instances where negative returns were projected suggests that any largescale fuels reduction program will likely require substantial subsidies.
Metric Equivalents
When you know
Acres (ac)
Inches (in)
Feet (ft)
Square feet (ft 2)
Cubic feet (ft3)
Cubic feet per acre (ft3 /acre)
Square feet per acre (ft 2/acre)
Miles per hour (mph)
Pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3)
Tons per acre (t/acre)
Literature Cited
Multiply by:
0.41
2.54
.3048
.093
.028
.06997
.229
1.61
16.03
2.24
To find:
Hectares
Centimeters
Meters
Square meters
Cubic meters
Cubic meters per hectare
Square meters per hectare
Kilometers per hour
Kilograms per cubic meter
Tonnes or megagrams per hectare
Barbour, R.J. 1999. Relationship between diameter and gross product value for small
trees. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual wood technology clinic and show. Atlanta,
GA: Wood Technology and Miller Freeman. 27: 40–46.
Beukema, S.J.; Greenough, D.C.; Robinson, C.E. [et al.]. 1997. An introduction
to the fire and fuels extension to FVS. In: Tech, R.; Moeur, M.; Adams, J., eds.
Proceedings of the Forest Vegetation Simulator conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT373. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station: 191–195.
22
Christensen, G.; Barbour, R.J. 1999. Veneer recovery from small diameter logs. In:
Proceedings, 1999 Society of American Foresters national meeting. Bethesda, MD:
Society of American Foresters: 299–304.
Christensen, G.A.; Fight, R.D.; Barbour, R.J. 2002. Simulating fire hazard
reduction, wood flows, and economics of fuel treatments with FVS, FEEMA, and
FIA data. In: Crookston, N.L.; Havis, R.N., comps. Proceedings of the second
Forest Vegetation Simulator conference. Proc. RMRS-P-25. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station:
91–96.
Crookston, N.L. 1990. User’s guide to the event monitor: part of prognosis model
version 6. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-275. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 21 p.
Fight, R.D.; Barbour, R.J.; Christensen, G.A. [et al.]. 2004. Thinning and
prescribed fire and projected trends in wood product potential, financial return, and
fire hazard in New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-605. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
46 p.
Fight, R.D.; Chmelik, J.T. 1998. Analysts guide to FEEMA for financial analysis of
ecosystem management activities. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-111. Madison, WI:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 5 p.
Hartsough, B.R.; Zhang, X.; Fight, R.D. 2001. Harvesting cost model for small trees
in natural stands in the interior Northwest. Forest Products Journal. 51(4): 54–61.
LeVan-Green, S.L.; Livingston, J. 2001. Exploring the uses for small-diameter trees.
Forest Products Journal. 51(9): 10–21.
Lowell, E.C.; Green, D.W. 2001. Lumber recovery from small-diameter ponderosa
pine from Flagstaff, Arizona. In: Vance, R.K.; Edminster, C.B.; Covington, W.W.;
Blake, J.A., comps. Ponderosa pine ecosystem restoration and conservation: steps
toward stewardship. Proceedings of a conference. Proc. RMRS-P-22. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station:
161–165.
Plank, M.E. 1982. Lumber recovery from ponderosa pine in western Montana. Res.
Pap. PNW-297. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p.
Scott, J.H.; Reinhardt, E.D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models
of surface and crown fire behavior. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-29. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p.
Stage, A.R. 1973. Prognosis model for stand development. Res. Pap. INT-137.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 32 p.
Willits, S. 1994. “Black bark” ponderosa pine: tree grade definition and value
comparison with old-growth trees. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 9(1): 8–13.
Wolfe, R.W.; Hernandez, R. 1999. Trussed assemblies from small-diameter
round timbers. In: Walford, G.B.; Guant, D.J., eds. Proceedings of Pacific timber
engineering conference. Rotorua, New Zealand: Forest Research Bulletin. 212:
251–256. Vol. 1.
23
Acronym Glossary
d.b.h.—Diameter at breast height
FEEMA—Financial evaluation of ecosystem management activities
FFE—Fire and fuels extension
FIA—Forest inventory and analysis
FVS—Forest vegetation simulator
QMD—Quadratic mean breast-height diameter
SED—Small-end diameter of logs
TCT—Technical contact team: advisory groups representing state, private, and
federal forest managers. Representatives were staff or administrators with state or
regionwide responsibility.
TB9—Thin from below to 9 inches d.b.h. with a minimum residual basal area
50BA—Thin from below up to 50 percent of standing basal area with a minimum
residual basal area
Appendix 1:
Cost and Log
Price Assumptions
Cost assumptions are for harvesting, hauling, and treating unutilized trees. Groundbased harvesting systems are assumed for gentle slopes (<35 percent). Cable systems are assumed for steep slopes. Harvesting costs used differ by tree size and
volume per acre that is harvested. An average hauling cost of $28 per hundred cubic
feet was used for all cases. Log prices used are for a mixed log market. Because of
the tendency for high-cost wood to be the last supply to enter the market in good times
and the first supply to leave the market in bad times, there are bound to be periods
of lower prices where net revenues will be significantly less favorable than we report
(tables 1 through 3).
Table 1—Harvesting costs
Tree diameter at
breast height
24
Volume harvested (cubic feet per acre)
400
700
1,000
1,500
Inches
- - - - Dollars per 100 cubic feet - - - -
Gentle slope:
6
8
10
12
14
16
83
74
66
57
48
48
81
72
64
55
46
46
79
71
62
53
44
44
76
68
59
50
41
41
Steep slope:
6
8
10
12
14
16
172
162
153
143
136
134
134
125
115
109
106
103
123
113
104
94
89
86
114
104
95
85
82
78
Table 2a—Costs for treating
unutilized trees by slashinga
Number of trees
Dollars per acre
<300
300 to 1,000
1,000 to 2,000
>2,000
105
225
250
280
a
Cost of slashing, and treating trees less than 4
inches diameter at breast height.
Table 2b—Costs for treating
unutilized trees by yardinga
Slope
Dollars per 100 cubic feet
Gentle
Steep
80
130
a
Cost of skidding/yarding unutilized trees greater
than 4 inches at breast height.
Source: Data were provided (8-8-2001) by
Bureau of Business and Economic Research,
University of Montana.
Table 3—Log prices for Montana
Small-end diameter
Inches
7
8
10
12
14
16
17
18
Douglas-fir
and larch
Hemlock
and fir
Ponderosa
pine
Lodgepole
pine
- - - - - - - - - Dollars per 100 cubic feet - - - - - - - - 169
132
132
143
189
147
189
161
227
178
227
197
265
208
265
233
304
238
304
268
342
269
342
280
360
284
361
280
360
290
370
280
Source: Developed from data provided (8-8-2001) by the Bureau of Business and Economic
Research, University of Montana.
25
Appendix 2:
Acreage and
Number of
Inventory Plots
The number of forest inventory plots and the number of acres that they represent for
each case (a combination of forest type, region, ownership, fire hazard, and slope) for
which we report results are shown in tables 4 and 5.
Table 4—Acreage and number of inventory plots for the Douglas-fir
forest type in Montana
Land type
Western Montana:
National forest land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Subtotal
Other land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Subtotal
Eastern Montana:
National forest land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Subtotal
Other land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Subtotal
Total
26
Acres
Number of plots
1,110,929
391,177
377,362
180,592
50
50
50
29
2,060,060
320,337
681,644
247,955
582,582
50
50
44
50
1,832,518
788,983
397,766
196,576
177,926
50
50
31
28
1,561,251
394,057
322,964
56,647
241,519
1,015,187
6,469,016
50
50
10
38
Table 5—Acreage and number of inventory plots for the ponderosa
pine forest type in Montana
Land type
Acres
Number of plots
Western Montana:
National forest land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
74,843
62,709
57,627
43,472
10
11
12
10
Subtotal
Other land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Subtotal
Eastern Montana:
National forest land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Subtotal
Other land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Subtotal
Total
238,651
—
194,724
73,065
119,736
<10
28
12
20
387,525
24,137
222,140
—
—
13
32
<10
<10
246,277
261,392
840,053
167,702
565,328
32
46
26
39
1,834,475
2,706,928
— = not available.
27
Appendix 3:
Average Initial Stand
Characteristics
Average basal area, average trees per acre, and average quadratic mean diameter
were all calculated for trees 1 in diameter at breast height and larger. The standard
errors for each variable also are reported. It is important to recognize that these data
represent average stand conditions, and it is not possible to calculate the third variable
from the other two as can be done for a single stand (tables 6 through 13).
Table 6—Average initial stand characteristics for the Douglas-fir forest type in
western Montana, national forest land
Year
Measure
BAa
TPAb
QMDc
Number
129
22
Inches
10.5
.8
1993
Gentle slope, low hazard
Mean
SEd
Ft 2 /acre
63
10
1993
Gentle slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
117
8
586
62
6.7
.3
1993
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SE
51
4
102
11
11.0
.8
1993
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
126
8
451
51
8.0
.4
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
BA = basal area.
b
TPA = trees per acre.
c
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
Table 7—Average initial stand characteristics for the Douglas-fir forest type in
western Montana, other land
Year
Measure
BAa
TPAb
QMDc
Number
142
22
Inches
8.0
.7
1989
Gentle slope, low hazard
Mean
SEd
Ft 2 /acre
48
6
1989
Gentle slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
124
8
656
79
6.9
.4
1989
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SE
60
4
183
23
9.5
.6
1989
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
109
6
594
59
6.6
.3
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
BA = basal area.
b
TPA = trees per acre.
c
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
28
Table 8—Average initial stand characteristics for the Douglas-fir forest type in
eastern Montana, national forest land
Year
Measure
BAa
TPAb
QMDc
Number
99
16
Inches
11.3
.9
1997
Gentle slope, low hazard
Mean
SEd
Ft 2 /acre
58
6
1997
Gentle slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
147
9
336
29
9.8
.4
1997
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SE
55
6
97
17
12.3
.9
1997
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
131
9
451
60
8.5
.5
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
BA = basal area.
b
TPA = trees per acre.
c
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
Table 9—Average initial stand characteristics for the Douglas-fir forest type in
eastern Montana, other land
Year
Measure
BAa
TPAb
QMDc
Number
88
13
Inches
10.2
.8
1988
Gentle slope, low hazard
Mean
SEd
Ft 2 /acre
50
6
1988
Gentle slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
123
7
406
61
8.7
.4
1988
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SE
57
13
148
52
10.8
2.3
1988
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
115
6
458
59
8.0
.4
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
BA = basal area.
b
TPA = trees per acre.
c
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
29
Table 10—Average initial stand characteristics for the ponderosa pine forest in
western Montana, national forest land
Year
Measure
BAa
TPAb
QMDc
Number
94
46
Inches
14.7
3.9
1995
Gentle slope, low hazard
Mean
SEd
Ft 2 /acre
44
11
1995
Gentle slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
78
15
357
74
8.0
1.4
1995
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SE
41
6
53
15
15.4
3.1
1995
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
84
8
179
42
11.0
1.0
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
BA = basal area.
b
TPA = trees per acre.
c
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
Table 11—Average initial stand characteristics for the ponderosa pine forest
type in western Montana, other land
Year
Measure
BAa
TPAb
QMDc
Number
38
8
Inches
10.4
1.5
1989
Gentle slope, low hazard
Mean
SEd
Ft 2 /acre
30
6
1989
Gentle slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
78
10
537
97
6.6
.6
1989
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SE
33
5
55
16
12.8
1.3
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
BA = basal area.
b
TPA = trees per acre.
c
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
30
Table 12—Average initial stand characteristics for the ponderosa pine forest
type in eastern Montana, national forest land
Year
Measure
BAa
TPAb
QMDc
Number
270
49
Inches
8.0
0.6
377
158
8.5
1.3
1997
Gentle slope, high hazard
Mean
SEd
Ft 2 /acre
80
12
1997
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
54
11
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
BA = basal area.
b
TPA = trees per acre.
c
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
Table 13—Average initial stand characteristics for the ponderosa pine forest
type in eastern Montana, other land
Year
Measure
BAa
TPAb
QMDc
Number
44
5
Inches
10.3
.6
1988
Gentle slope, low hazard
Mean
SEd
Ft 2 /acre
27
2
1988
Gentle slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
75
5
299
34
7.7
.3
1988
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SE
28
3
65
9
9.1
.7
1988
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
66
6
390
69
6.9
.4
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
BA = basal area.
b
TPA = trees per acre.
c
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
31
Appendix 4: Average
Residual Stand
Characteristics
Average residual stand characteristics are intended to provide resource managers with
an idea of the composition and structure of residual stands after each thinning entry.
These summary statistics were generated by using output from the Forest Vegetation
Simulation growth model simulations from the individual forest inventory and analysis
plots included in each case. Average basal area, average trees per acre, and average
quadratic mean diameter are averages of plot-level results weighted by the expansion factor (the area represented by a plot) for the plot. Trees less than 1 in diameter at
breast height were eliminated from this analysis to give a more meaningful representation of the overstory stand conditions.
The major focus of this analysis was the types of raw materials that might be produced
from various cutting treatments. As a result, only plots where thinnings were applied
in any given entry are included in the analysis presented for residual stand conditions.
This makes the information reported in this appendix consistent with the other results
included in this report. It is a relatively simple matter to alter the Microsoft Access reports to include any combination of plots so the tables and appendixes could include
all plots, only the unthinned plots, or only the thinned plots as reported here (tables 14
through 21).
32
Table 14—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in western
Montana, national forest land
Year
R xa
Measure
BAb
TPAc
QMDd
BA CUT e
2
No.
Inches
Percent
Ft /acre
Gentle slope, low hazard
2030
TB9f
50BA h
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TPA
QMD
BA CUT
Ft 2/acre
No.
Inches Percent
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEg
Mean
SE
119
10
85
3
92
18
57
14
16.9
.8
20.8
1.3
12
2
37
3
100
6
82
1
69
9
40
5
18.2
.7
21.7
1.0
9
1
32
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
126
9
80
1
54
5
25
4
21.4
.8
26.3
1.1
7
2
26
2
116
6
80
1
47
3
32
7
22.4
.6
25.0
.9
4
1
23
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
142
9
80
1
41
3
20
3
25.3
.7
29.7
1.1
5
1
22
1
132
7
80
1
39
3
21
4
25.9
.6
29.3
.8
3
1
19
1
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
BA
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
92
6
85
2
100
6
106
11
13.0
.3
13.8
.6
32
2
38
2
108
6
87
2
109
7
81
7
13.8
0.4
15.4
.6
25
2
40
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
97
5
80
1
72
4
66
10
16.0
.4
17.5
.7
7
2
20
1
135
7
80
1
76
5
35
2
18.5
.4
21.5
.6
2
1
26
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
111
5
80
1
56
3
39
3
19.2
4
21.2
.6
5
1
19
1
151
8
80
1
60
4
22
1
21.9
.4
26.3
.5
4
1
23
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
124
5
80
1
48
2
26
2
21.9
.4
24.8
.6
3
1
18
1
167
8
80
1
53
3
18
1
24.8
.5
29.7
.5
3
1
20
1
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
R x = treatment.
b
BA = basal area.
c
TPA = trees per acre.
d
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
e
BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.
f
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
g
SE = standard error (+/- ).
h
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
33
Table 15—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in western
Montana, other land
Year
R xa
Measure
BAb
TPAc
QMDd
BA CUT e
2
No.
Inches
Percent
Ft /acre
Gentle slope, low hazard
2030
TB9f
50BA h
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
QMD
BA CUT
Ft 2/acre
No.
Inches Percent
Steep slope, low hazard
110
6
82
1
71
5
43
4
17.3
.4
20.3
.9
10
1
37
3
103
5
80
1
73
5
49
4
16.9
.5
18.8
.7
7
1
31
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
118
7
80
1
57
6
45
18
20.8
.6
24.5
.9
6
1
23
1
126
5
80
1
57
3
28
2
20.8
.5
24.1
.7
1
1
20
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
130
1
80
1
42
2
20
3
24.2
.6
29.0
.7
5
1
21
1
145
6
80
1
48
3
20
1
24.2
.5
28.0
.6
1
1
17
1
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
86
5
84
1
110
6
128
15
12.2
.5
13.3
.7
36
3
39
2
78
6
83
1
96
5
139
12
12.2
.3
12.0
.6
37
2
33
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
97
5
80
1
69
4
59
6
16.4
.4
17.3
.7
7
2
22
2
95
7
80
1
63
4
57
5
16.5
.3
17.7
.8
3
1
20
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
106
5
80
1
52
2
41
6
19.4
.4
21.4
.7
5
1
19
1
112
8
80
1
51
3
35
3
19.9
.4
21.9
.7
2
1
20
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
121
6
80
1
44
2
31
6
22.5
.3
24.8
.7
3
1
17
1
124
8
80
1
43
2
26
3
22.8
.4
25.7
.7
2
1
17
1
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
R x = treatment.
b
BA = basal area.
c
TPA = trees per acre.
d
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
e
BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.
f
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
g
SE = standard error (+/- ).
h
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
34
TPA
Mean
SEg
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
BA
Table 16—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in eastern
Montana, national forest land
Year
R xa
Measure
BAb
TPAc
QMDd
BA CUT e
2
No.
Inches
Percent
Ft /acre
Gentle slope, low hazard
2030
TB9f
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TPA
QMD
BA CUT
Ft 2/acre
No.
Inches Percent
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEg
Mean
SE
89
11
71
1
119
18
64
15
12.0
0.5
17.9
1.1
22
5
32
3
93
10
71
1
204
86
47
15
11.3
1.0
20.6
1.5
15
3
34
4
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
106
—
70
1
164
—
27
3
10.9
—
23.2
.9
1
—
20
2
113
—
70
1
97
—
26
3
14.6
—
24.0
1.4
3
—
15
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
110
6
70
1
44
2
21
3
21.5
.5
26.7
1.0
5
1
16
1
103
8
70
1
38
3
20
2
22.7
.8
26.6
1.2
4
1
15
1
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
BA
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
117
9
87
3
119
7
84
10
13.3
.5
15.8
.7
27
3
43
2
95
8
85
3
113
8
105
14
12.6
.5
14.6
.9
32
3
42
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
136
10
70
1
86
5
40
4
16.9
.4
20.1
.8
2
1
25
2
106
10
70
1
69
6
36
4
17.0
.6
21.1
1.4
2
1
20
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
145
10
70
1
68
5
29
4
19.6
.4
23.2
.8
4
1
17
1
114
11
70
1
55
5
30
4
19.7
.7
23.2
1.3
3
1
15
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
155
11
70
1
58
4
20
1
22.2
.4
26.4
.7
4
1
16
1
127
11
70
1
47
4
22
2
22.5
.7
25.6
1.0
3
1
15
1
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
R x = treatment.
b
BA = basal area.
c
TPA = trees per acre.
d
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
e
BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.
f
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
g
SE = standard error (+/- ).
h
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
35
Table 17—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in eastern
Montana, other land
Year
R xa
Measure
BAb
TPAc
QMDd
BA CUT e
2
No.
Inches
Percent
Ft /acre
Gentle slope, low hazard
2030
TB9f
50BA h
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
QMD
BA CUT
Ft 2/acre
No.
Inches Percent
Steep slope, low hazard
80
20
71
1
106
23
38
4
11.6
.5
20.2
1.1
3
1
32
3
92
26
73
2
121
6
42
14
11.5
1.8
22.4
3.0
17
8
37
7
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
68
14
70
1
147
18
25
1
9.1
.4
23.7
.7
1
1
21
2
—
—
70
1
—
—
18
4
—
—
28.8
2.7
—
—
22
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
123
4
70
1
45
2
18
1
22.6
.4
27.6
.6
3
1
19
1
133
17
70
1
35
4
13
3
26.4
1.7
34.0
3.0
6
1
1
1
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
101
6
81
2
106
6
86
8
13.2
.3
14.6
.5
28
3
42
2
89
6
80
2
103
7
102
9
12.7
.3
13.4
.5
35
3
40
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
120
7
71
1
76
4
39
4
17.0
.3
19.9
.7
5
1
31
2
111
7
70
1
74
5
42
3
16.8
.3
18.8
.7
4
1
23
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
139
8
70
1
60
3
25
2
20.5
.4
24.8
.8
6
1
26
1
130
9
70
1
58
4
26
2
20.7
.4
23.4
.7
4
1
23
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
155
9
70
1
49
3
17
1
24.0
.5
29.4
.9
6
1
25
1
148
10
70
1
48
3
19
2
23.9
.6
28.2
.8
4
1
23
1
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
R x = treatment.
b
BA = basal area.
c
TPA = trees per acre.
d
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
e
BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.
f
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
g
SE = standard error (+/- ).
h
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
36
TPA
Mean
SEg
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
BA
Table 18—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in western
Montana, national forest land
Year
R xa
Measure
BAb
TPAc
QMDd
BA CUT e
2
No.
Inches
Percent
Ft /acre
Gentle slope, low hazard
2030
TB9f
50BA h
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TPA
QMD
BA CUT
Ft 2/acre
No.
Inches Percent
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEg
Mean
SE
80
13
56
6
71
18
46
14
15.0
1.1
17.7
2.3
15
5
35
6
67
7
50
1
36
8
24
4
21.1
2.5
21.0
2.0
9
4
33
5
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
97
13
52
2
54
12
20
4
18.7
0.9
23.0
1.8
7
3
35
4
82
9
50
1
30
6
13
2
24.6
2.3
28.2
2.1
6
2
25
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
112
12
50
1
46
8
13
2
21.7
0.9
27.4
1.5
4
2
32
3
94
11
50
1
27
6
9
1
27.7
2.3
32.5
1.9
4
1
25
2
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
BA
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
72
11
58
4
92
17
114
48
13.4
1.6
14.9
2.2
29
5
38
5
68
11
54
2
55
9
48
13
15.9
1.3
17.1
1.5
21
6
40
4
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
90
11
52
1
63
8
33
10
17.1
1.4
20.7
1.9
9
4
38
3
91
11
50
1
50
7
21
4
19.0
1.1
22.7
1.5
3
1
24
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
112
11
50
1
52
6
16
3
20.7
1.2
26.0
1.5
4
1
36
3
96
11
50
1
41
5
15
2
21.3
1.0
26.3
1.4
5
1
23
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
130
12
50
1
46
5
11
1
23.6
1.2
30.1
1.4
3
1
31
2
105
12
50
1
35
4
12
2
23.8
1.0
28.8
1.5
3
1
22
1
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
R x = treatment.
b
BA = basal area.
c
TPA = trees per acre.
d
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
e
BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.
f
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
g
SE = standard error (+/- ).
h
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
37
Table 19—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in western
Montana, other land
Year
R xa
Measure
BAb
TPAc
QMDd
BA CUT e
2
No.
Inches
Percent
Ft /acre
Gentle slope, low hazard
2030
TB9f
50BA h
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
QMD
BA CUT
Ft 2/acre
No.
Inches Percent
Steep slope, low hazard
70
7
52
1
42
4
26
5
17.9
.9
21.0
1.4
9
1
37
4
78
6
52
2
43
9
20
3
20.3
1.4
23.2
1.5
8
2
36
4
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
85
7
50
1
45
8
25
11
21.1
1.4
26.0
1.6
9
2
37
2
93
8
50
1
34
6
13
2
24.0
1.4
28.5
1.5
4
1
30
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
105
8
50
1
34
6
31
13
26.0
1.5
29.5
2.2
6
2
29
2
108
9
50
1
29
5
8
1
27.9
1.4
33.8
1.4
3
1
26
2
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
71
8
60
3
74
6
68
7
13.2
.5
14.2
.8
34
4
42
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
100
8
55
2
53
4
22
1
18.7
.4
22.4
.7
10
2
44
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
126
8
51
1
44
3
12
1
23.1
.5
28.6
.7
3
1
38
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
146
9
50
1
38
2
9
1
26.7
.5
33.5
.8
2
1
33
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
R x = treatment.
b
BA = basal area.
c
TPA = trees per acre.
d
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
e
BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.
f
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
g
SE = standard error (+/- ).
h
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
38
TPA
Mean
SEg
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
BA
Table 20—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in eastern
Montana, national forest land
Year
R xa
Measure
BAb
TPAc
QMDd
BA CUT e
2
No.
Inches
Percent
Ft /acre
Gentle slope, low hazard
2030
TB9f
50BA h
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TPA
QMD
BA CUT
Ft 2/acre
No.
Inches Percent
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEg
Mean
SE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
BA
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
85
11
62
6
98
12
59
7
12.9
.5
14.6
.6
28
2
46
2
43
3
50
5
54
7
76
19
12.6
1.2
12.8
1.8
42
9
40
6
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
87
11
47
3
61
8
43
11
16.2
.6
18.1
1.0
11
4
40
2
71
5
44
2
41
5
21
2
18.5
.9
20.8
1.2
10
2
44
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
90
11
42
1
55
8
29
9
18.1
.9
20.6
1.0
14
2
32
2
89
7
40
1
32
3
10
1
22.8
.8
28.0
1.2
6
2
43
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
103
12
40
1
40
4
14
1
21.4
.6
24.0
.8
13
2
30
2
102
7
40
1
27
2
7
1
26.8
.8
33.6
1.2
4
1
36
2
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
R x = treatment.
b
BA = basal area.
c
TPA = trees per acre.
d
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
e
BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.
f
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
g
SE = standard error (+/- ).
h
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
39
Table 21—Average residual stand characteristics projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in eastern
Montana, other land
Year
R xa
Measure
BAb
TPAc
QMDd
BA CUT e
2
No.
Inches
Percent
Ft /acre
Gentle slope, low hazard
2030
TB9f
50BA h
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
QMD
BA CUT
Ft 2/acre
No.
Inches Percent
Steep slope, low hazard
54
10
43
1
67
12
27
2
12.2
.6
17.8
.6
7
3
34
3
62
9
45
2
75
10
28
2
12.3
.4
17.9
.6
16
3
38
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
86
6
40
1
116
6
17
1
11.8
.4
21.7
.6
7
1
37
2
97
12
41
1
121
15
19
2
12.5
.5
21.7
.9
6
2
34
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
102
7
40
1
52
2
13
1
18.8
.4
24.5
.6
15
1
37
1
100
10
40
1
46
3
14
2
19.6
.6
24.4
.9
12
1
30
2
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
63
5
53
3
79
5
67
5
12.0
.3
12.6
.4
35
3
44
2
57
3
48
2
67
4
59
8
12.7
.3
13.7
.6
34
3
45
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
81
6
44
1
65
4
28
2
15.4
.4
17.6
.4
10
1
40
2
75
5
41
1
46
3
23
4
17.2
.6
21.1
1.0
8
1
38
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
99
7
41
1
52
3
20
2
18.7
.4
20.8
.6
12
1
35
2
89
6
40
1
34
1
12
1
21.7
.6
27.1
1.1
5
1
35
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
115
8
40
1
45
3
14
1
21.5
.5
24.0
.6
12
1
34
1
100
6
40
1
28
1
8
1
25.3
.6
32.1
1.2
4
1
32
1
Note: Values are averages and cannot necessarily be cross referenced.
a
R x = treatment.
b
BA = basal area.
c
TPA = trees per acre.
d
QMD = quadratic mean diameter.
e
BA CUT = percentage of total basal area harvested.
f
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
g
SE = standard error (+/- ).
h
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
40
TPA
Mean
SEg
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
BA
Appendix 5:
Average Volume
of Utilized Trees
Resource managers who plan and conduct fuel mitigation treatments and contractors
who bid on the treatments need information on the merchantable volume and size of
trees to be removed during treatments. Such information is presented in this appendix.
The tables included in this appendix summarize average cubic-foot volume harvested
per acre, with standard errors (see tables 22 through 29). Reporting results by 3-in
diameter classes provides a sense of the relative importance of different tree sizes.
Processing output for all trees 7 in diameter at breast height and larger through the
Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem Management Activities (FEEMA) model generates
the data needed for tables. Merchantable volume is calculated by summing all of the
logs that FEEMA recovered from each tree up to a 5-in top. All values are stand averages weighted by plot expansion factors. All tree species are combined. Cases where
less than 50 cubic feet of material was removed are left blank because this amount of
volume is considered insignificant and including it makes the output in later appendixes (e.g., 7 and 8) confusing.
41
Table 22—Average volume of utilized trees by diameter class projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in
western Montana, national forest land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
RXa
Measure
7 to 10
10 to 13
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - 2030
TB9b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
18
266
582
54
57
163
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
—
—
86
31
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
11
6
—
—
6
5
—
—
53
35
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
7
4
—
—
14
8
—
—
27
19
7 to 10
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
a
42
16+
Total
Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
178
225
334
37
48
99
—
—
952
69
—
—
58
26
—
—
795
9
—
—
583
100
—
—
652
87
—
—
18
12
—
—
10
5
—
—
38
11
—
—
475
66
—
—
541
55
—
—
459
53
—
—
506
39
—
—
3
1
—
—
4
2
—
—
6
3
—
—
436
34
—
—
449
30
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
234
36
303
52
0
0
275
55
0
0
40
20
0
0
1
1
234
36
619
28
180
27
311
41
0
0
390
80
0
0
158
55
0
0
66
33
180
27
925
40
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
50
15
—
—
58
17
—
—
173
37
—
—
122
34
—
—
403
20
—
—
7
4
—
—
27
11
—
—
217
40
—
—
518
84
—
—
769
43
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
18
11
—
—
52
15
—
—
89
24
—
—
243
32
—
—
402
3
—
—
2
2
—
—
17
9
—
—
13
8
—
—
593
38
—
—
624
26
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
4
4
—
—
10
7
—
—
28
14
—
—
383
33
—
—
425
26
—
—
2
1
—
—
6
3
—
—
13
8
—
—
499
26
—
—
520
18
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
b
13 to 16
- - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - -
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
10 to 13
Table 23—Average volume of utilized trees by diameter class projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in
western Montana, other land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
RXa
Measure
7 to 10
10 to 13
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - 2030
TB9b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Gentle slope, low hazard
0
0
0
0
0
0
222
285
395
50
49
103
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
61
24
115
41
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
10
4
—
—
16
7
—
—
61
20
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
5
2
—
—
9
4
—
—
10
8
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
210
29
277
41
0
0
194
46
0
0
74
26
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
51
19
—
—
119
29
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
10
4
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
8
4
7 to 10
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
177
226
244
36
47
74
61
24
1,017
91
—
—
92
17
—
—
482
72
—
—
569
56
—
—
2
1
—
—
23
9
—
—
93
24
—
—
382
52
—
—
500
28
—
—
485
36
—
—
509
28
—
—
1
1
—
—
1
1
—
—
1
1
—
—
447
33
—
—
451
32
0
0
46
23
210
29
591
12
201
24
189
40
0
0
190
49
0
0
64
27
0
0
0
0
201
24
444
45
—
—
130
30
—
—
106
38
—
—
406
10
—
—
43
11
—
—
58
20
—
—
51
19
—
—
315
83
—
—
468
67
—
—
40
15
—
—
82
24
—
—
301
56
—
—
433
43
—
—
5
2
—
—
47
12
—
—
126
25
—
—
273
47
—
—
451
11
—
—
20
9
—
—
22
10
—
—
345
36
—
—
394
27
—
—
1
1
—
—
2
2
—
—
24
9
—
—
411
28
—
—
438
18
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
10 to 13
—
—
738
42
Steep slope, high hazard
a
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
b
43
Table 24—Average volume of utilized trees by diameter class projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in
eastern Montana, national forest land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
RXa
Measure
7 to 10
10 to 13
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - 2030
TB9b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
135
168
187
42
39
91
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
—
—
69
20
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
16
13
—
—
9
7
—
—
38
29
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
2
1
—
—
3
3
—
—
33
17
7 to 10
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
a
44
16+
Total
Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
183
122
301
62
51
119
—
—
559
41
—
—
20
14
—
—
627
72
—
—
305
56
—
—
368
48
—
—
3
3
—
—
0
0
—
—
38
38
—
—
214
39
—
—
255
44
—
—
236
33
—
—
275
25
—
—
1
1
—
—
8
6
—
—
2
2
—
—
246
30
—
—
258
25
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
246
34
306
46
0
0
314
51
0
0
198
53
0
0
141
71
246
34
957
47
176
38
201
40
0
0
255
57
0
0
100
31
0
0
91
53
176
38
646
32
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
1
1
—
—
64
16
—
—
120
33
—
—
387
92
—
—
572
77
—
—
17
9
—
—
71
56
—
—
56
21
—
—
327
90
—
—
470
83
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
0
0
—
—
1
1
—
—
37
13
—
—
219
29
—
—
257
24
—
—
1
1
—
—
15
7
—
—
44
16
—
—
140
31
—
—
200
24
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
0
0
—
—
0
0
—
—
3
3
—
—
246
23
—
—
250
22
—
—
1
1
—
—
7
5
—
—
25
10
—
—
207
28
—
—
239
22
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
b
13 to 16
- - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - -
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
10 to 13
Table 25—Average volume of utilized trees by diameter class projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in
eastern Montana, other land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
RXa
Measure
7 to 10
10 to 13
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - 2030
TB9
b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
178
223
210
35
50
66
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
—
—
36
10
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
10
3
—
—
35
12
—
—
54
14
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
6
3
—
—
3
3
—
—
4
4
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
215
29
241
30
0
0
271
50
0
0
131
37
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
8
4
—
—
69
28
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
1
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
1
1
7 to 10
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
165
81
382
131
58
233
—
—
647
59
—
—
2
2
—
—
286
51
—
—
386
34
—
—
0
0
—
—
0
0
—
—
135
102
—
—
265
102
—
—
400
94
—
—
380
55
—
—
393
53
—
—
0
0
—
—
0
0
—
—
0
0
—
—
364
52
—
—
364
52
0
0
52
33
215
29
695
32
221
34
206
31
0
0
188
44
0
0
55
20
0
0
11
9
221
34
459
26
—
—
135
34
—
—
385
83
—
—
598
70
—
—
6
3
—
—
98
26
—
—
91
27
—
—
162
42
—
—
358
28
—
—
3
3
—
—
25
12
—
—
417
40
—
—
445
35
—
—
1
1
—
—
3
2
—
—
40
15
—
—
341
41
—
—
385
34
—
—
4
3
—
—
3
2
—
—
394
25
—
—
402
23
—
—
0
0
—
—
2
2
—
—
10
6
—
—
403
27
—
—
415
23
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
10 to 13
—
—
629
197
Steep slope, high hazard
a
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
b
45
Table 26—Average volume of utilized trees by diameter class projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in
western Montana, national forest land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
RXa
Measure
7 to 10
10 to 13
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - 2030
TB9b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
2000
TB9
TB9
c
50BAd
2060
TB9
c
50BA
2090
TB9
d
c
50BAd
a
65
35
76
53
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
13
10
—
—
86
82
—
—
121
100
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
6
4
—
—
0
0
—
—
0
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
89
37
162
67
0
0
141
81
0
0
92
63
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
22
14
—
—
153
66
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
7
4
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
8
3
46
13 to 16
16+
Total
Steep slope, low hazard
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
150
261
20
119
158
65
35
606
46
60
36
85
58
—
—
466
147
—
—
686
6
—
—
4
2
—
—
15
10
—
—
52
28
—
—
255
88
—
—
326
56
—
—
605
167
—
—
610
164
—
—
7
3
—
—
0
0
—
—
7
7
—
—
301
58
—
—
315
47
0
0
86
83
89
37
482
55
74
34
74
32
0
0
198
81
0
0
227
91
0
0
155
77
74
34
655
79
—
—
145
83
—
—
357
148
—
—
677
68
—
—
13
9
—
—
4
3
—
—
28
18
—
—
325
108
—
—
370
95
—
—
59
59
—
—
35
22
—
—
558
145
—
—
659
115
—
—
2
1
—
—
4
4
—
—
44
32
—
—
241
45
—
—
290
25
—
—
0
0
—
—
0
0
—
—
459
75
—
—
467
70
—
—
6
4
—
—
19
18
—
—
2
2
—
—
243
32
—
—
269
13
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/- ).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
b
10 to 13
- - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - -
Gentle slope, high hazard
c
50BAd
2030
Gentle slope, low hazard
0
0
0
0
0
0
233
203
95
121
156
57
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
7 to 10
60
36
543
102
Steep slope, high hazard
Table 27—Average volume of utilized trees by diameter class projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in
western Montana, other land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
RXa
Measure
7 to 10
10 to 13
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - 2030
TB9b
—
—
26
7
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
19
3
—
—
30
10
—
—
65
30
TB9
Mean
50BA
SE
—
—
19
5
—
—
8
2
—
—
0
0
TB9
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
139
22
144
23
0
0
190
51
0
0
119
52
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
24
10
—
—
46
19
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
10
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
18
4
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
124
228
393
36
69
158
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
7 to 10
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
168
96
320
87
34
97
—
—
771
7
—
—
67
39
—
—
563
97
—
—
677
48
—
—
12
5
—
—
4
2
—
—
16
11
—
—
510
122
—
—
543
110
—
—
425
64
—
—
452
53
—
—
11
3
—
—
4
2
—
—
1
1
—
—
384
81
—
—
401
74
0
0
65
54
139
22
518
46
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
122
25
—
—
786
126
—
—
978
79
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
1
—
—
18
14
—
—
862
107
—
—
892
99
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
1
—
—
1
1
—
—
547
57
—
—
570
49
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
10 to 13
—
—
651
91
Steep slope, high hazard
a
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/- ).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
b
47
Table 28—Average volume of utilized trees by diameter class projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in
eastern Montana, national forest land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
RXa
Measure
7 to 10
10 to 13
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - 2030
TB9b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
135
36
214
53
0
0
225
64
0
0
56
26
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
0
0
—
—
60
30
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
2
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
1
1
7 to 10
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
a
48
16+
Total
Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
0
13
10
135
36
508
9
90
45
35
16
0
0
21
21
0
0
25
19
0
0
3
3
90
45
83
17
—
—
162
52
—
—
317
96
—
—
540
78
—
—
59
15
—
—
136
69
—
—
176
61
—
—
271
70
—
—
643
102
—
—
19
11
—
—
5
5
—
—
224
67
—
—
250
65
—
—
28
7
—
—
12
5
—
—
30
28
—
—
626
89
—
—
697
34
—
—
4
3
—
—
2
1
—
—
121
19
—
—
129
18
—
—
40
6
—
—
15
5
—
—
1
1
—
—
384
52
—
—
440
31
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/- ).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
b
13 to 16
- - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - -
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
10 to 13
—
—
—
—
Steep slope, high hazard
Table 29—Average volume of utilized trees by diameter class projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in
eastern Montana, other land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
RXa
Measure
7 to 10
10 to 13
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - 2030
TB9b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
2000
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
35
66
97
11
18
32
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
—
—
3
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
3
1
—
—
3
2
—
—
5
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
6
2
—
—
6
3
—
—
1
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
120
20
141
25
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
1
1
—
—
39
12
—
—
147
34
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
2
1
—
—
5
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
3
1
—
—
2
1
7 to 10
10 to 13
13 to 16
16+
Total
- - - - - - - - - - Cubic feet per acre - - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
47
72
72
17
32
33
—
—
200
27
—
—
21
15
—
—
213
31
—
—
132
23
—
—
143
21
—
—
0
0
—
—
0
0
—
—
8
6
—
—
170
30
—
—
179
28
—
—
89
11
—
—
103
8
—
—
4
2
—
—
3
2
—
—
0
0
—
—
95
15
—
—
102
13
Gentle slope, high hazard
0
0
0
0
0
0
119
64
0
28
30
0
120
20
324
28
74
15
98
15
Steep slope, high hazard
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
46
5
26
20
5
74
15
258
7
—
—
165
39
—
—
352
33
—
—
13
4
—
—
23
13
—
—
82
26
—
—
429
70
—
—
547
46
—
—
6
3
—
—
196
32
—
—
208
30
—
—
29
8
—
—
15
6
—
—
15
7
—
—
393
47
—
—
452
28
—
—
6
3
—
—
118
16
—
—
128
15
—
—
21
4
—
—
10
2
—
—
16
12
—
—
282
26
—
—
329
8
a
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/- ).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
b
49
Appendix 6:
Average Volume of
Unutilized Trees
50
Volumes for trees in the 1- to <4-in and 4- to <7-in diameter at breast height classes
are reported in this appendix. These biomass volumes are total tree volume estimates
taken directly from the Forest Vegetation Simulation model. Unutilized tree volumes
are reported to provide information on the total amount of bole wood biomass that
needs to be processed to accomplish the fuel reduction treatment. This material is
generally too small to be handled commercially, but occasionally price spikes in either
hog fuel or pulp chips make removal of some of these trees financially viable. Also, as
new technologies arise, alternative uses might be found for these trees, so information
on their volume is useful for planning (tables 30 through 37).
Table 30—Average volume of trees cut but not utilized, by diameter class, projected for
the Douglas-fir forest type in western Montana, national forest land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
2030
RXa
TB9
b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
1 to 4
4 to 7
Total
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
4 to 7
Total
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, low hazard
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
103
22
103
22
37
9
37
9
140
17
140
17
56
10
56
10
34
12
34
12
90
13
90
13
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
45
4
49
5
12
5
36
12
57
3
85
7
23
2
26
2
6
1
16
3
29
1
42
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
41
4
49
5
7
3
24
4
49
1
72
7
22
2
26
2
6
1
13
2
28
1
39
2
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
1 to 4
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
123
17
123
17
311
52
311
52
434
37
434
37
80
14
80
14
238
38
238
38
318
30
318
30
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
32
9
34
9
43
17
63
18
75
17
97
17
11
3
17
3
20
9
37
12
31
9
54
11
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
22
4
41
5
22
9
34
10
44
8
75
8
19
4
28
3
19
5
26
5
37
6
54
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
19
4
39
5
9
4
43
11
28
5
82
9
14
3
28
3
11
4
30
6
25
4
58
4
a
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
b
51
Table 31—Average volume of trees cut but not utilized, by diameter class, projected for
the Douglas-fir forest type in western Montana, other land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
2030
RXa
TB9
b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
1 to 4
4 to 7
Total
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
a
52
Total
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, low hazard
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
43
6
43
6
62
16
62
16
105
13
105
13
18
3
18
3
46
12
46
12
64
10
64
10
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
38
6
42
6
10
3
14
3
49
5
56
4
10
1
12
1
1
1
3
1
11
1
15
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
36
5
40
5
11
3
25
5
47
5
66
3
10
1
12
1
1
1
3
1
11
1
15
1
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
108
24
108
24
419
47
419
47
527
31
527
31
83
13
83
13
318
34
318
34
401
15
401
15
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
29
5
29
4
42
11
43
11
71
10
72
9
21
4
16
2
17
3
27
4
38
4
42
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
24
4
39
5
21
4
38
6
45
4
76
1
14
2
17
2
22
5
18
3
36
4
35
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
19
4
36
4
12
2
39
7
31
3
74
2
12
2
16
2
13
3
17
2
25
2
33
2
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
b
4 to 7
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
1 to 4
Table 32—Average volume of trees cut but not utilized, by diameter class, projected for
the Douglas-fir forest type in eastern Montana, national forest land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
2030
RXa
TB9
b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
1 to 4
4 to 7
Total
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
4 to 7
Total
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, low hazard
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
54
12
54
12
28
13
28
13
82
14
82
14
50
12
50
12
30
12
30
12
80
14
80
14
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
22
4
22
4
18
5
13
2
41
2
35
2
15
2
15
3
15
6
17
6
30
6
32
6
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
19
2
21
2
25
4
25
4
43
4
45
4
13
2
14
3
13
2
10
1
26
2
24
1
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
1 to 4
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
36
7
36
7
199
34
199
34
235
30
235
30
65
15
65
15
352
82
352
82
417
77
417
77
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
11
1
13
1
6
1
10
2
17
1
23
1
8
1
10
1
5
1
10
3
13
1
20
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
24
4
25
4
13
3
19
3
38
3
44
2
16
3
16
3
8
2
11
2
24
2
27
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
27
4
25
4
13
3
24
4
40
3
49
2
17
3
16
2
10
2
12
2
27
2
28
1
a
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
b
53
Table 33—Average volume of trees cut but not utilized, by diameter class, projected for
the Douglas-fir forest type in eastern Montana, other land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
2030
RXa
TB9
b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
1 to 4
4 to 7
Total
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
a
54
Total
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, low hazard
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
18
3
18
3
24
7
24
7
42
6
42
6
52
22
52
22
64
38
64
38
116
34
116
34
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
32
2
31
2
31
2
34
3
62
7
65
7
21
5
20
5
17
3
18
3
38
7
39
7
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
31
3
33
3
40
3
40
4
71
7
72
7
23
6
22
6
25
4
21
3
48
9
44
8
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
32
10
32
10
248
44
248
44
279
41
279
41
45
10
45
10
299
52
299
52
344
48
344
48
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
25
2
26
2
20
2
24
2
45
4
50
4
18
1
19
1
13
1
18
3
32
3
37
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
29
2
28
2
30
3
41
3
59
4
69
6
23
2
22
2
21
2
26
2
44
3
48
4
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
32
3
29
2
30
3
47
3
62
5
76
6
25
2
23
2
22
2
29
2
47
4
52
5
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
b
4 to 7
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
1 to 4
Table 34—Average volume of trees cut but not utilized, by diameter class, projected for
the ponderosa pine forest type in western Montana, national forest land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
2030
RXa
TB9
b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
1 to 4
4 to 7
Total
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
4 to 7
Total
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, low hazard
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
26
9
26
9
90
27
90
27
116
12
116
12
7
2
7
2
23
19
23
19
31
18
31
18
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
37
11
44
9
36
16
52
17
72
1
96
17
20
3
25
3
20
7
34
7
40
7
59
14
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
30
11
47
7
26
15
62
15
56
10
108
23
19
4
26
3
12
4
46
8
31
6
73
17
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
1 to 4
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
69
17
69
17
263
63
263
63
332
25
332
25
42
15
42
15
119
66
119
66
161
51
161
51
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
17
3
22
3
54
29
60
28
71
26
83
23
14
3
16
3
7
2
30
12
21
1
46
8
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
23
5
44
4
14
7
51
11
37
4
95
18
21
4
32
4
15
6
34
6
36
2
66
11
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
16
4
55
6
7
5
59
9
24
3
114
23
17
4
33
4
19
9
41
8
36
6
73
12
a
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
b
55
Table 35—Average volume of trees cut but not utilized, by diameter class, projected for
the ponderosa pine forest type in western Montana, other land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
2030
RXa
TB9
b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
1 to 4
4 to 7
Total
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
a
56
Total
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, low hazard
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
15
2
15
2
57
10
57
10
72
5
72
5
13
2
13
2
20
4
20
4
33
5
33
5
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
43
7
55
9
55
15
71
15
98
7
126
10
16
3
21
3
17
3
24
4
33
6
46
8
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
36
8
61
8
34
12
58
7
70
8
119
16
13
2
25
4
12
3
25
5
25
4
50
9
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
117
26
117
26
235
38
235
38
352
21
352
21
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
38
5
53
7
49
12
39
6
87
7
93
7
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
22
3
52
6
10
3
42
5
32
2
94
10
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
15
3
61
6
5
1
59
6
20
2
120
13
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
b
4 to 7
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
1 to 4
Table 36—Average volume of trees cut but not utilized, by diameter class, projected for
the ponderosa pine forest type in eastern Montana, national forest land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
2030
RXa
TB9
b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
1 to 4
4 to 7
Total
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
4 to 7
Total
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, low hazard
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
1 to 4
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
46
15
46
15
159
28
159
28
206
17
206
17
92
44
92
44
172
57
172
57
263
35
263
35
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
43
16
38
14
51
24
73
33
94
26
111
33
22
2
24
3
41
6
44
6
63
10
68
11
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
44
3
42
2
60
7
67
6
103
12
109
13
21
5
33
5
29
6
38
6
50
6
70
12
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
46
3
45
3
61
7
70
7
106
13
115
14
17
4
35
5
23
6
42
5
40
4
77
14
a
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
b
57
Table 37—Average volume of trees cut but not utilized, by diameter class, projected for
the ponderosa pine forest type in eastern Montana, other land
Diameter at breast height (inches)
Year
2030
RXa
TB9
b
50BAd
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
1 to 4
4 to 7
Total
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
a
58
Total
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, low hazard
Steep slope, low hazard
Mean
SEc
Mean
SE
24
1
24
1
20
2
20
2
44
5
44
5
19
1
19
1
18
6
18
6
37
4
37
4
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
52
2
51
2
64
4
71
6
115
12
121
12
36
1
37
1
42
4
45
5
78
10
82
10
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
51
2
54
2
62
4
90
7
113
12
145
14
40
1
40
2
41
3
56
6
81
11
96
12
Steep slope, high hazard
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
42
10
42
10
175
28
175
28
217
22
217
22
61
21
61
21
224
30
224
30
286
14
286
14
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
40
1
39
1
36
3
37
3
76
7
76
7
26
3
35
2
35
6
50
8
62
4
85
7
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
49
2
47
2
54
4
61
5
104
10
107
10
23
3
38
2
17
3
42
4
40
3
79
9
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
57
2
55
2
69
6
79
7
126
11
134
12
19
2
43
3
12
2
46
5
31
2
89
10
R x = treatment.
TB9= thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
SE = standard error (+/-).
d
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
b
4 to 7
- - - Cubic feet per acre - - -
Gentle slope, high hazard
2000
1 to 4
Appendix 7:
Average Small-End
Diameter of
Utilized Logs
Information on average sawlog size is reported in this appendix. These data provide
millowners with information on how the size of logs generated from fuel reduction
treatments might be expected to change over time. Tables 38 and 39 show the average small-end diameter (SED) of logs removed during treatments, by entry. The SEDs
of individual logs are output from Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem Management
Activities (FEEMA) weighted by volume and plot expansion factor. The minimum diameter log included in FEEMA output is 5 in. All tree species are combined.
59
Table 38—Average small-end diameter of utilized logs projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in Montana
Entry 1a
Type
Western Montana:
National forest land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Other land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Eastern Montana:
National forest land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Other land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Measure
TB9e
50BAf
TB9
50BA
Entry 3c
TB9
50BA
Entry 4d
TB9
50BA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Inches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mean
SEg
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
5.6
.05
5.5
.05
—
—
—
—
6.8
.17
6.4
.14
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
5.4
.04
5.5
.04
—
—
—
—
6.0
.17
6.4
.20
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
5.4
.04
5.5
.05
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
5.5
.04
5.5
.04
—
—
—
—
10.0
.31
8.3
.29
9.1
.44
9.4
.41
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
13.1
.35
10.1
.38
11.6
.54
13.1
.64
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15.4
.40
12.5
.36
14.6
.53
15.3
.74
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.5
.09
8.1
.44
8.3
.35
7.8
.31
8.4
.37
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
10.5
.48
10.4
.39
11.2
.43
11.8
.50
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
13.1
.47
12.1
.48
13.9
.47
14.7
.52
6.8
.24
6.9
.21
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
9.6
.62
9.7
.36
8.9
.48
7.8
.39
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
11.1
.64
11.9
.45
12.0
.76
10.6
.56
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
12.6
.56
13.3
.48
13.0
.83
13.2
.50
6.2
.14
6.4
.17
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8.8
.33
9.3
.31
9.8
.98
8.5
.33
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
11.0
.43
12.2
.44
13.2
1.40
10.9
.42
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
14.2
.43
14.8
.53
16.2
1.53
13.7
.41
— = no logs with small-end diameter >5 inches harvested.
a
Entry date 1: 2000 for high-fire-hazard stands, 2030 for low-fire-hazard stands.
b
Entry date 2: 2030 for high-fire-hazard stands, 2060 for low-fire-hazard stands.
c
Entry date 3: 2060 for high-fire-hazard stands, 2090 for low-fire-hazard stands.
d
Entry date 4: 2090 for high-fire-hazard stands.
e
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
f
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
g
SE = standard error (+/-).
60
Entry 2b
Table 39—Average small-end diameter of utilized logs projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in
Montana
Entry 1a
Type
Western Montana:
National forest land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Other land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Eastern Montana:
National forest land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Other land—
Steep slope, high fire hazard
Gentle slope, high fire hazard
Steep slope, low fire hazard
Gentle slope, low fire hazard
Measure
TB9e
50BAf
Entry 2b
TB9
50BA
Entry 3c
TB9
50BA
Entry 4d
TB9
50BA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Inches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mean
SEg
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
5.6
.18
5.5
.15
—
—
—
—
7.5
.43
7.8
.95
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.5
.02
5.4
.13
10.6
.97
9.7
1.04
8.7
1.20
7.8
.74
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
13.9
.92
13.5
.89
12.1
1.28
11.5
.99
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15.3
1.18
16.6
.82
16.5
1.30
15.1
1.01
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
5.5
.06
—
—
—
—
—
—
6.2
.22
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
10.5
.43
9.9
.81
9.1
.80
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15.2
.47
13.6
1.05
13.0
.73
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
18.1
.42
16.0
.81
16.5
.66
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
5.3
.15
5.4
.07
—
—
—
—
6.2
.71
6.3
.15
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
9.2
.62
9.2
.32
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
14.0
.55
10.7
.59
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
16.1
.96
12.3
.65
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
5.3
.04
5.3
.04
—
—
—
—
6.1
.17
5.9
1.4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
10.4
.51
8.2
.21
7.7
.26
7.9
.26
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
13.8
.67
10.2
.34
10.3
.37
10.6
.39
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15.3
.75
12.1
.40
11.4
.60
11.4
.47
— = no logs with small-end diameter >5 inches harvested.
a
Entry date 1: 2000 for high-fire-hazard stands, 2030 for low-fire-hazard stands.
b
Entry date 2: 2030 for high-fire-hazard stands, 2060 for low-fire-hazard stands.
c
Entry date 3: 2060 for high-fire-hazard stands, 2090 for low-fire-hazard stands.
d
Entry date 4: 2090 for high fire hazard stands.
e
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
f
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
g
SE = standard error (+/-).
61
Appendix 8:
Average Percentage
of Volume, by
Species, of
Utilized Trees
62
Information presented in this appendix provides estimates of the species mix of logs
removed during various treatment entries. The average percentage of volume in each
of the three main groups, Douglas-fir/larch, ponderosa pine, and white woods, is
displayed. Calculation is based on the average merchantable harvest volume (cubic
feet/acre) from Financial Evaluation of Ecosystem Management Activities (FEEMA),
weighted by the expansion factor (tables 40 through 47).
Table 40—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in western
Montana, national forest land
Year
2030
RXa
TB9c
50BAe
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
2000
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woodsb
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woods
Mean
SEd
Mean
SE
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
67
8
25
16
2
6
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
71
13
16
13
2
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
71
15
—
—
17
4
—
—
12
3
—
—
89
15
—
—
9
1
—
—
2
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
79
16
—
—
15
3
—
—
6
1
—
—
91
14
—
—
8
1
—
—
1
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
77
3
20
13
1
3
75
3
22
14
1
4
Steep slope, high hazard
80
6
14
1
86
1
14
1
14
2
13
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
85
14
—
—
5
1
—
—
10
2
—
—
95
15
—
—
2
1
—
—
3
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
85
13
—
—
11
2
—
—
4
1
—
—
97
15
—
—
1
1
—
—
2
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
89
13
—
—
8
1
—
—
3
1
—
—
96
14
—
—
3
1
—
—
1
1
— = no harvested volume.
a
R x = treatment.
b
White woods = all other species.
c
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
e
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
63
Table 41—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in western
Montana, other land
Year
2030
RXa
TB9c
50BAe
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
2000
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woods
Mean
SEd
Mean
SE
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Gentle slope, low hazard
62
12
26
16
3
7
77
9
14
15
2
3
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
80
12
8
13
2
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
78
14
—
—
16
3
—
—
5
1
—
—
79
13
—
—
19
3
—
—
1
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
76
12
—
—
21
3
—
—
2
1
—
—
75
11
—
—
23
3
—
—
3
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
77
3
20
13
1
3
77
7
16
14
1
3
Steep slope, high hazard
88
3
13
1
81
4
17
1
8
1
15
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
91
16
—
—
6
1
—
—
3
1
—
—
89
16
—
—
6
1
—
—
4
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
90
14
—
—
9
1
—
—
1
1
—
—
90
15
—
—
9
1
—
—
1
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
85
13
—
—
12
2
—
—
3
1
—
—
86
14
—
—
13
2
—
—
0
0
— = no harvested volume.
a
R x = treatment.
b
White woods = all other species.
c
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
e
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
64
White
woodsb
Table 42—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in eastern
Montana, national forest land
Year
2030
RXa
TB9c
50BAe
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
2000
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woodsb
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woods
Mean
SEd
Mean
SE
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
79
0
21
19
0
5
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
89
0
11
24
0
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
99
22
—
—
0
0
—
—
0
0
—
—
86
22
—
—
0
0
—
—
14
4
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
96
20
—
—
4
1
—
—
0
0
—
—
95
21
—
—
4
1
—
—
1
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
86
2
12
15
1
2
83
2
16
13
1
2
Steep slope, high hazard
97
0
17
0
90
0
17
0
3
1
10
2
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
93
15
—
—
1
1
—
—
6
1
—
—
95
21
—
—
0
0
—
—
5
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
98
16
—
—
0
0
—
—
2
1
—
—
92
18
—
—
4
1
—
—
3
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
96
15
—
—
2
1
—
—
1
1
—
—
95
17
—
—
2
1
—
—
4
1
— = no harvested volume.
a
R x = treatment.
b
White woods = all other species.
c
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
e
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
65
Table 43—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the Douglas-fir forest type in eastern
Montana, other land
Year
2030
RXa
TB9c
50BAe
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
2000
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woods
Mean
SEd
Mean
SE
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
87
6
7
18
1
1
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
79
0
21
35
0
9
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
80
14
—
—
16
3
—
—
4
1
—
—
91
37
—
—
0
0
—
—
9
4
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
88
15
—
—
10
2
—
—
2
1
—
—
95
39
—
—
5
2
—
—
0
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
87
4
13
1
90
3
13
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
90
13
—
—
5
1
—
—
5
1
—
—
89
16
—
—
3
1
—
—
7
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
91
13
—
—
8
1
—
—
1
1
—
—
84
13
—
—
12
2
—
—
4
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
90
13
—
—
8
1
—
—
2
1
—
—
92
14
—
—
7
1
—
—
1
1
— = no harvested volume.
a
R x = treatment.
b
White woods = all other species.
c
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
e
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
66
White
woodsb
9
1
7
1
Steep slope, high hazard
88
5
13
1
91
1
15
1
8
1
8
1
Table 44—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in
western Montana, national forest land
Year
2030
RXa
TB9c
50BAe
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
2000
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
Mean
SEd
Mean
SE
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woodsb
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Gentle slope, low hazard
0
86
14
0
50
8
16
79
5
7
35
2
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woods
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
68
32
0
48
23
0
35
65
0
14
27
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
11
5
—
—
88
36
—
—
0
0
—
—
36
14
—
—
64
24
—
—
0
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
0
0
—
—
100
41
—
—
0
0
—
—
35
13
—
—
65
25
—
—
0
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
40
60
23
35
34
66
14
27
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
27
9
—
—
73
24
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
13
4
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
11
3
Steep slope, high hazard
39
25
22
14
39
48
13
16
36
21
13
4
—
—
0
0
—
—
26
8
—
—
74
24
—
—
0
0
—
—
87
27
—
—
1
1
—
—
19
6
—
—
81
26
—
—
0
0
—
—
87
28
—
—
2
1
—
—
18
5
—
—
82
25
—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
— = no harvested volume.
a
R x = treatment.
b
White woods = all other species.
c
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
e
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
67
Table 45—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in
western Montana, other land
Year
2030
RXa
TB9c
50BAe
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
2000
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woods
Mean
SEd
Mean
SE
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
95
0
2
29
0
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
18
82
0
6
26
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
21
5
—
—
79
20
—
—
0
0
—
—
29
9
—
—
71
21
—
—
0
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
18
4
—
—
82
21
—
—
0
0
—
—
23
7
—
—
77
23
—
—
0
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
28
69
6
14
27
71
6
15
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
20
4
—
—
78
14
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
14
3
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
17
3
— = no harvested volume.
a
R x = treatment.
b
White woods = all other species.
c
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
e
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
68
White
woodsb
Steep slope, high hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
85
15
—
—
1
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
83
15
—
—
0
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
1
1
1
Table 46—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in
eastern Montana, naional forest land
Year
2030
RXa
TB9c
50BAe
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
2000
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
Mean
SEd
Mean
SE
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woodsb
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woods
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
17
83
4
21
8
92
2
21
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
9
2
—
—
91
20
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
18
10
2
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
0
0
4
1
Steep slope, high hazard
0
100
0
71
21
79
11
39
0
0
0
0
—
—
0
0
12
4
8
2
88
27
92
27
0
0
0
0
76
44
97
19
7
4
1
1
8
3
0
0
80
28
100
29
12
4
0
0
53
53
95
18
47
47
1
1
19
8
2
1
66
27
98
28
15
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
— = no harvested volume.
a
R x = treatment.
b
White woods = all other species.
c
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
e
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
69
Table 47—Average percentage of log volume by species projected for the ponderosa pine forest type in
eastern Montana, other land
Year
2030
RXa
TB9c
50BAe
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
2000
TB9
50BA
2030
TB9
50BA
2060
TB9
50BA
2090
TB9
50BA
Measure
Mean
SEd
Mean
SE
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
99
0
1
19
0
Douglas-fir
and larch
Ponderosa
pine
White
woods
- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
96
0
1
24
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
1
1
—
—
99
18
—
—
0
0
—
—
0
0
—
—
100
23
—
—
0
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
2
1
—
—
98
16
—
—
1
1
—
—
4
1
—
—
95
20
—
—
1
1
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Gentle slope, high hazard
4
96
1
17
4
96
1
16
0
0
0
0
Steep slope, high hazard
4
96
1
19
5
95
1
18
0
0
0
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
3
1
—
—
97
15
—
—
0
0
—
—
5
1
—
—
95
19
—
—
0
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
2
1
—
—
98
15
—
—
0
0
—
—
9
2
—
—
90
16
—
—
0
0
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
—
—
4
1
—
—
96
14
—
—
0
0
—
—
3
1
—
—
96
17
—
—
0
0
— = no harvested volume.
a
R x = treatment.
b
White woods = all other species.
c
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
d
SE = standard error (+/- ).
e
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
70
White
woodsb
Appendix 9:
Average Proportion
of Stands by Net
Value Category
Data presented in this appendix provide information about the extent to which the thinning treatments have sufficient value to be self-financing as timber sales. The net value estimates are based on a mixed market for logs and a market for chip logs. These
results should be regarded as an optimistic estimate of the ability to pay for these
treatments via timber sales because of the assumed market for chip logs. The range
of net value and the recognition that there are many stands that will not have a positive net value from thinning under any foreseeable circumstances are the important
results. Because these results include calculations involving economic assumptions
for which standard errors are unknown, standard errors are also unknown for these
results and therefore none are reported (tables 48 through 55).
Table 48—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the Douglas-fir forest
type in western Montana, national forest land
Year
RXa
<-$100
b
$-100 to $100 to $500 to
$100
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
Gentle slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.05
.23
.18
2030 TB9
50BAc
1.00
.23
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.08
0
.04
0
.17
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.07
0
.07
0
.15
1.00
.68
2030 TB9
50BA
1.00
.30
0
.11
0
.30
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.16
0
.10
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.02
0
.06
$-100 to
$100
$100 to $500 to
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
Steep slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.06
.16
.22
0
.32
1.00
.47
0
.21
0
.50
1.00
.20
0
.15
0
.29
0
.15
0
.22
0
.19
0
.52
1.00
.11
0
.04
0
.30
0
.39
0
.15
Gentle slope, high hazard
0
0
0
.10
.20
.02
2000 TB9
50BA
<-$100
Steep slope, high hazard
0
0
0
0
.07
.05
0
.09
0
0
1.00
.81
0
.07
0
.20
0
.09
1.00
.10
0
.12
0
.29
0
.29
0
.20
0
.29
0
.37
0
.08
1.00
.05
0
.07
0
.14
0
.53
0
.21
0
.24
0
.53
0
.14
1.00
.07
0
.02
0
.09
0
.70
0
.13
Note: Proportion = the proportion of stands in net value categories for each forest type, year, and treatment.
a
R x = treatment.
b
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
71
Table 49—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the Douglas-fir forest
type in western Montana, other land
Year
RXa
<-$100
b
$-100 to $100 to $500 to
$100
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
Gentle slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.07
.17
.00
2030 TB9
50BAc
1.00
.27
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.08
0
.14
0
.14
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.05
0
.05
0
.07
1.00
.76
2030 TB9
50BA
1.00
.25
0
.11
0
.42
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.12
0
.14
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.13
0
.06
$-100 to
$100
Steep slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.08
.11
.11
1.00
.54
0
.17
0
.47
1.00
.05
0
.29
0
.32
0
.13
0
.21
0
.34
0
.49
1.00
.07
0
.09
0
.34
0
.39
0
.11
Steep slope, high hazard
0
0
0
.04
0
.02
0
.16
0
.07
1.00
.93
0
.14
0
.08
1.00
.60
0
.06
0
.06
0
.14
0
.14
0
.30
0
.23
0
.21
1.00
.23
0
.25
0
.15
0
.28
0
.10
0
.25
0
.23
0
.33
1.00
.07
0
.07
0
.45
0
.33
0
.07
Note: Proportion = the proportion of stands in net value categories for each forest type, year, and treatment.
a
R x = treatment.
b
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
72
$100 to $500 to
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
0
.50
Gentle slope, high hazard
0
0
0
.07
.07
.04
2000 TB9
50BA
<-$100
0
0
Table 50—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the Douglas-fir forest
type in eastern Montana, national forest land
Year
RXa
<-$100
b
$-100 to $100 to $500 to
$100
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
Gentle slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.09
.26
.13
2030 TB9
50BAc
1.00
.43
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.17
0
.09
0
.39
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.04
0
.08
0
.63
1.00
.59
2030 TB9
50BA
1.00
.07
0
.26
0
.33
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.07
0
.26
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.09
0
.12
$-100 to
$100
$100 to $500 to
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
Steep slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.24
.06
.00
0
.09
1.00
.47
0
.17
0
.17
1.00
.28
0
.17
0
.50
0
.06
0
0
0
.21
0
.04
1.00
.19
0
.24
0
.52
0
.05
0
0
Gentle slope, high hazard
0
0
0
.04
.07
.13
2000 TB9
50BA
<-$100
Steep slope, high hazard
0
0
0
.08
.05
.03
0
.24
0
.17
1.00
.80
0
.05
0
.02
0
.31
1.00
.35
0
.30
0
13
0
.04
0
.17
0
.38
0
.24
0
.05
1.00
.32
0
.39
0
.25
0
.00
0
.04
0
.47
0
.26
0
.07
1.00
.09
0
.58
0
.30
0
0
0
.03
Note: Proportion = the proportion of stands in net value categories for each forest type, year, and treatment.
a
R x = treatment.
b
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
73
Table 51—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the Douglas-fir forest
type in eastern Montana, other land
Year
RXa
<-$100
b
$-100 to $100 to $500 to
$100
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
Gentle slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.19
.23
.12
2030 TB9
50BAc
1.00
.15
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
0
0
.20
0
.46
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.03
0
.05
0
.41
1.00
.61
2030 TB9
50BA
1.00
.11
0
.17
0
.30
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.06
0
.04
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.06
0
.06
$-100 to
$100
Steep slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.29
0
0
1.00
.43
0
.26
0
.09
1.00
.14
0
.14
0
.43
0
.14
0
.14
0
.35
0
.16
1.00
0
0
0
0
.71
0
.29
0
0
Steep slope, high hazard
0
0
0
.02
.08
0
0
.29
0
.10
1.00
.90
0
.17
0
.26
1.00
.43
0
.30
0
.22
0
.03
0
.03
0
.33
0
.23
0
.33
1.00
.17
0
.24
0
.38
0
.17
0
.05
0
.24
0
.30
0
.34
1.00
.07
0
.07
0
.44
0
.35
0
.07
Note: Proportion = the proportion of stands in net value categories for each forest type, year, and treatment.
a
R x = treatment.
b
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
74
$100 to $500 to
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
0
.31
Gentle slope, high hazard
0
0
0
.12
.10
.06
2000 TB9
50BA
<-$100
0
0
Table 52—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the ponderosa pine
forest type in western Montana, national forest land
Year
RXa
<-$100
b
$-100 to $100 to $500 to
$100
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
Gentle slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.14
0
.29
2030 TB9
50BAc
1.00
.43
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
0
0
0
0
.29
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
0
0
0
0
.14
<-$100
0
.43
0
.29
1.00
.38
0
.13
0
.38
0
.13
0
0
0
.57
0
.29
1.00
0
0
.25
0
.50
0
.25
0
0
1.00
.58
0
.36
0
.27
0
.27
0
.45
0
.18
0
.55
2030 TB9
50BA
1.00
.18
0
.18
0
0
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
0
0
0
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
0
0
0
Steep slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.14
0
.29
1.00
.43
0
.10
1.00
.70
$100 to $500 to
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
0
.14
Gentle slope, high hazard
0
0
0
.10
0
.10
2000 TB9
50BA
$-100 to
$100
0
.14
Steep slope, high hazard
0
.08
0
.08
0
.17
0
.08
1.00
.36
0
.09
0
.27
0
.09
0
.18
0
.27
1.00
0
0
.36
0
.55
0
.09
0
0
0
.27
1.00
.08
0
.25
0
.58
0
.08
0
0
Note: Proportion = the proportion of stands in net value categories for each forest type, year, and treatment.
a
R x = treatment.
b
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
75
Table 53—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the ponderosa pine
forest type in western Montana, other land
Year
RXa
<-$100
b
$-100 to $100 to $500 to
$100
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
Gentle slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.08
.08
.08
2030 TB9
50BAc
1.00
.23
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.06
0
.11
0
.11
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.16
0
.05
0
0
1.00
.67
2030 TB9
50BA
1.00
.06
0
.13
0
.03
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.00
0
0
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.00
0
.03
$-100 to
$100
Steep slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.09
.18
.36
1.00
.27
0
.28
0
.44
1.00
.08
0
0
0
.50
0
.25
0
.17
0
.42
0
.37
1.00
.08
0
.08
0
.42
0
.25
0
.17
Steep slope, high hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
.09
0
.07
—
—
0
.29
0
.48
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
.10
0
.26
0
.65
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
.10
0
.42
0
.45
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Note: Proportion = the proportion of stands in net value categories for each forest type, year, and treatment.
a
R x = treatment.
b
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
76
$100 to $500 to
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
0
.54
Gentle slope, high hazard
0
0
0
.10
.10
.07
2000 TB9
50BA
<-$100
—
—
Table 54—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the ponderosa pine
forest type in eastern Montana, national forest land
Year
RXa
<-$100
b
$-100 to $100 to $500 to
$100
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
Gentle slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
2030 TB9
50BAc
—
—
2060 TB9
50BA
—
—
—
—
—
—
2090 TB9
50BA
—
—
—
—
—
—
1.00
.82
2030 TB9
50BA
1.00
.16
0
.20
0
.28
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.24
0
.38
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.33
0
.27
$-100 to
$100
$100 to $500 to
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
Steep slope, low hazard
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Gentle slope, high hazard
0
0
0
.09
.05
.05
2000 TB9
50BA
<-$100
Steep slope, high hazard
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
.20
0
.16
1.00
.31
0
.23
0
.23
0
.23
0
0
0
.24
0
.03
0
.10
1.00
0
0
0
0
.38
0
.23
0
.38
0
.33
0
.03
0
.03
1.00
.08
0
.08
0
.31
0
.46
0
.08
Note: Proportion = the proportion of stands in net value categories for each forest type, year, and treatment.
a
R x = treatment.
b
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
— = no data.
77
Table 55—Average proportion of stands by net value per acre category projected for the ponderosa pine
forest type in eastern Montana, other land
Year
RXa
<-$100
b
$-100 to $100 to $500 to
$100
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
Gentle slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.36
.18
.06
2030 TB9
50BAc
1.00
.39
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.39
0
.39
0
.17
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.44
0
.49
0
.05
1.00
.87
2030 TB9
50BA
1.00
.28
0
.30
0
.21
2060 TB9
50BA
1.00
.20
0
.46
2090 TB9
50BA
1.00
.30
0
.52
$-100 to
$100
Steep slope, low hazard
0
0
0
.19
.10
0
1.00
.71
0
.06
0
0
1.00
.50
0
.41
0
.09
0
0
0
0
0
.03
0
.00
1.00
.44
0
.52
0
.04
0
0
0
0
Steep slope, high hazard
0
0
0
0
.03
0
0
0
0
.02
1.00
.97
0
.09
0
.12
1.00
.29
0
.16
0
.16
0
.19
0
.19
0
.22
0
.09
0
.04
1.00
.16
0
.13
0
.25
0
.31
0
.16
0
.13
0
.02
0
.02
1.00
.13
0
.16
0
.59
0
.09
0
.03
Note: Proportion = the proportion of stands in net value categories for each forest type, year, and treatment.
a
R x = treatment.
b
TB9 = thin from below to 9 inches diameter at breast height.
c
50BA = thin from below to 50 percent of basal area.
78
$100 to $500 to
$500
$1,000 >$1,000
0
0
Gentle slope, high hazard
0
0
0
.04
.04
.02
2000 TB9
50BA
<-$100
0
0
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle
of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of
wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation
with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests
and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly
greater service to a growing Nation.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,
DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
USDA is committed to making its information materials accessible to all USDA
customers and employees.
Pacific Northwest Research Station
Web site
Telephone
Publication requests
FAX
E-mail
Mailing address
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw
(503) 808-2592
(503) 808-2138
(503) 808-2130
pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us
Publications Distribution
Pacific Northwest Research Station
P.O. Box 3890
Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Pacific Northwest Research Station
333 SW First Avenue
P.O. Box 3890
Portland, OR 97208-3890
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300